On Wednesday(25th Sept), a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India issued a split verdict in a 1995 custodial death case involving Shama alias Kalya, who was allegedly tortured in police custody in Gondia City, Maharashtra. The trial court had convicted some accused of culpable homicide while acquitting them of murder charges, a decision upheld by the Bombay High Court.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict on Wednesday (25th Sept), regarding a 1995 custodial death case involving a man accused of housebreaking and theft in Gondia City, Maharashtra. The case, which has been under scrutiny for decades, revolves around the death of Shama alias Kalya, a man allegedly tortured in police custody. The trial court had previously convicted some of the accused for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, while acquitting them of murder charges. The Bombay High Court had upheld this decision, leading to further appeals.
The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justice C T Ravi Kumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar, delivered opposing opinions, highlighting the complexity of the case and the legal interpretations surrounding it.
The prosecution contended that Shama alias Kalya had a criminal record and was arrested in connection with a housebreaking and theft complaint. However, his arrest was not officially recorded by the police, raising suspicions of illegal detention. During his time in custody, Shama was allegedly subjected to custodial torture, which led to his death.
As per the prosecution’s version, an unidentified body was later found in a forest under the jurisdiction of Tirodi Police Station, Balaghat district, Madhya Pradesh. The body was burnt and buried, and the prosecution suggested that this was an attempt to cover up the custodial death.
Delivering his judgment, Justice C T Ravi Kumar acquitted the Maharashtra police officers, including Accused No. 2 (Ravindra) and Accused No. 4 (Hans Raj), of charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Ravi Kumar stated-
“In the absence of evidence regarding the homicidal death of Shama @ Kalya in Gondia City Police Station coupled with the defence evidence, which could stand the test of preponderance of probabilities and the other circumstances favourable to the accused emerging from the other circumstances and failure of the prosecution to establish the case put forth by it… Accused No. 2 (Ravindra) and Accused No. 4 (Hans Raj) are entitled to be acquitted for the commission of an offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34, IPC, granting the benefit of doubt.”
Contrary to Justice Ravi Kumar’s judgment, Justice Sanjay Kumar expressed a strong disagreement. He maintained that the custodial torture of Shama was sufficiently established based on the evidence.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Bench Split on Abortion Case; Fresh Hearing Scheduled
“In these circumstances, it can be reasonably inferred that Shama was in the illegal custody of the appellants from at least December 16, 1995, and endured prolonged third-degree treatment until December 24, 1995. Given this, it is hard to accept the appellants’ claim that Shama escaped from their custody. It seems highly unlikely that he would have been physically capable of fleeing by jumping from a moving jeep in a crowded residential area while evading the police.”
-Justice Sanjay Kumar remarked.
One of the central issues in the case was the inability to definitively establish that the recovered body was that of Shama. However, Justice Sanjay Kumar pointed out that under established legal precedent, it is not always necessary to produce a body to prove murder.
Quoting the ruling in Sevaka Perumal and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Justice Kumar observed-
“Just because the appellants were clever enough to fabricate a story about Shama escaping from their custody, and considering that the exhumed body, which they pointed out, is no longer relevant due to the rejection of the fingerprint evidence, it would be inappropriate to assume that the legal principles established in Sevaka Perumal do not apply. To do so would lead the Court into the trap set by the crafty and deceptive appellants, who have skillfully fabricated and manipulated records to evade accountability.”
The primary point of contention between the two justices was regarding the interpretation of the recovered body’s significance. Justice Sanjay Kumar argued that the absence of definitive identification of the body should not undermine the prosecution’s case.
He explained-
“This represents the primary difference in our perspectives. My learned colleague has operated under the assumption that if the dead body is claimed to have been found but is not conclusively identified as belonging to that individual, it would undermine the prosecution’s case. Accepting this assumption would allow those within the police force who engage in such wrongful practices to easily evade a guilty verdict.”
Justice Sanjay Kumar also highlighted the broader issue of police brutality and the need for stronger mechanisms to curb such practices. His judgment underscored the imperative for the legal system to confront the issue of custodial torture head-on.
“When there is enough evidence to determine that Shama was unable to escape from the custody of the appellants, it naturally follows that he died as a result of their torture while in their care. It is time for our legal system to confront the issue of police excesses directly and implement an effective mechanism to prevent such inhumane practices.”
– he emphasized.
