'Can There Be A Better Cover-Up': Supreme Court Pulls Up State Of MP, Orders CBI Investigation In To Alleged Custodial Death Of 25-Year-Old

The Supreme Court today (May 15) transferred the investigation into the alleged custodial torture and murder of a 25-year-old Deva Pardhi to the Central Bureau of Investigation. 

The Court found that the police are continuously trying to cover up and influence the investigation into the alleged custodial death. First, when the victim's family immediately lodged an FIR after the incident, the local police prevented them from doing so. After the magisterial inquiry, an FIR was registered, but the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder was omitted. Thereafter, eight months have passed, and no single arrest has taken place. 

"These circumstances give rise to a clear inference that the investigation by the local police is not being carried out in a fair and transparent manner and there is an imminent possibility of the prosecution being subjugated by the accused if the investigation is left in the hands of the State police, who are apparently shielding their own fellow policemen owing to the camaraderie. Therefore, we deem it fit and essential to direct that the investigation of FIR No. 341 of 2024 shall forthwith be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation."

The judgement pronounced by a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta states that the police officials found responsible for the custodial death shall be arrested no later than a period of 1 month. The investigation shall be conducted within 90 days of the arrest of the accused. 

As per the petition filed by Deva's mother, Deva was arrested in relation to a case of theft along with his uncle, Gangara, who remains in judicial custody. It is the case of the petitioner that his son was brutally tortured and killed by the police.

Whereas, the police say the deceased died of a heart attack. Article 32 petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a full and fair investigation and handing over the case to CBI or SIT. Bail is also sought to Gangaram, who is said to be the sole eyewitness to the case.

Bail was denied to him by the Madhya Pradesh High Court however considering the threat perception, the High Court had transferred him to Central Jail, Gwalior. 

Today, in the judgement authored by Justice Mehta, the Court also gave certain directions for the consideration of bail to Gangaram and also directed that security may be permitted for his protection. The Court gave liberty to Gangaram to directly move the High Court for the grant of bail in all the cases in which he has been implicated. The Court also observed that there is a deliberate attempt to implicate Gangaram in multiple cases so as to keep him behind bars indefinitely.

"...and break his spirit and the spirit of his family members thereby ensuring that the said person being the star witness of the custodial death of Deva Pardhi is not only demoralized but is also prevented from deposing against the errant police officials...Gangaram Pardhi is the sole eye-witness to the torture and custodial death of Deva Pardhi and hence, it is the duty of the State to provide him protection on the anvil of the witness protection scheme."

It has directed that the High Court while considering the bail must keep the observations made by this Court in mind. The Court has also directed the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Madhya Pradesh and the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, to be responsible for providing safety and security to Gangaram.

As for Deva Pardhi, the Court further observed that despite taking note of the large number of injuries on his body, the victim of custodial torture, the members of the Medical Board, which conducted post-mortem on his body, failed to express any opinion regarding the cause of his death.

"We are, therefore, convinced that this is a classic case warranting invocation of the Latin maxim 'nemo judex in causa sua' which means that 'no one should be a judge in his own cause'. The allegation of causing custodial death of Deva Pardhi is against the local police officials of Myana Police Station. The fact that the police officials have influenced the investigation right from the beginning is amply borne out from the circumstance that even the doctors, who conducted autopsy of the dead body of Deva Pardhi, seem to have been pressurised/influenced."  

"This omission seems to be deliberate rather unintentional and appears to be a direct result of influence being exercised by the local police officials. The involvement of the police officials in the custodial death of Deva Pardhi is clearly borne out from the statement of the sole eye-witness Gangaram Pardhi and stands further corroborated during the magisterial inquiry. The victims' family tried to lodge the FIR immediately after the incident, but the local police officials prevented them from doing so. It is only after the magisterial inquiry was conducted that the FIR came to be registered wherein the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder was omitted. Nearly eight months have passed since the FIR was registered but till date, not a single accused has been arrested."  

This comes after the bench had passed oral strong remarks against the State of Madhya Pradesh for not arresting the police officers allegedly involved in the custodial torture and murder of Pardhi. The Court had remarked that the State was trying to shield the police officials.

In the previous hearing, when the Court was informed about the status of the Magisterial Inquiry against the serving police officers by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, including that the two officers in question have been shifted to line duty, the Court questioned the seriousness of the State and expressed that it is a sad state of affairs that no arrest has taken place.

Justice Mehta said: "Great response to a case of custodial death! What better example of favouritism, shielding your own officers. Would you like yourself to be appointed as amicus or appointed on behalf of CBI to take over the case? Rather than representing the State police. Ridiculous and inhumane approach. Absolutely. Man dies in your custody and it takes you 10 months to lay hands on your own officers. Why did you send them to line duty? For what reason? Their complicity has been found true, why they are not been arrested?"

He further said. "For the 10 months time you have not been able to arrest a single person. This reflects on your competence. What is the provision of law under which the FIR has been registered?"

Justice Mehta also remarked that the State tried to shift the burden by stating by saying that some substance was found in the body of the deceased. "Can there be a better cover-up act?."

Reading the postmortem report of the deceased, Justice Mehta added: "A 25-year-old boy killed by custodial violence and not a single injury on the body seen by the medical jurist? You say he died of a heart attack? Bruises all over the body. Sad state of affairs in this country that vice of custodial violence continues unabated despite repeated judgments by this Court, and offenders roam free. Horrendous. And you try to eliminate the sole witness."

At this point, the Counsel representing Gangaram, Advocate Payoshi Roy, apprised the Court that his reply to bail may be considered. She added that he is the sole witness of this incident and the police continue to harass him by accusing him in one case after another. To this, the Court suggested that it's better for him to remain in jail or the "other side" will attempt to eliminate him if he is released on bail.

Click here to read the judgment