Negotiable Instruments: Exhaustive Coverage by Adv Roma Bhagat. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


  • The term Custodial deaths is usually associated with intense pain inflicted on law offenders in forms of physical torture by the police or other official authorities such as army officers etc.
  • The torture caused is in such a huge amount that it eventually leads to death of the person being taken into custody.
  • Custodial death may even be caused while a person is being asked questioned, arrested or taken into detention.
  • Rape and torture are also two other forms of custodial violence, including death.


Custodial violence is certainly not a new peculiarity. Sections 330, 331 and 348 of IPC, Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, Section 76 of CrPC and Section 29 of the Police Act, 1861 were ordered to control the inclination of the police to fall back on torment to separate confessions and so on.

Custodial deaths caused by police while accused is in custody has been an issue for a long time not only in India but in the world as a whole now. The police use intense measures of physical torture to make the accused confess up the truth, and eventually such torture causes death. Sometimes, the pain inflicted on the accused is so much that they are even compelled to commit suicide.

After the brutal death of George Floyd in USA, people all around the world have raised their voice against custodial deaths as it is a violation of human rights.


Considering the huge number of custodial deaths in India, the judiciary and legislature, have both, from time to time, framed and implemented various laws and provisions to deal with this.

  • In 2005, the Code of Criminal Procedure 1971 – a set of rules and regulations that administer how criminal trials ought to be directed – was altered to present a request by legal justices in instances of custodial passing. According to Section 176 of the Code, notwithstanding the police leading a request for a custodial demise, the legal justice or the metropolitan officer in the ward of the police headquarters, needs to obligatorily direct a request. 24 hours after death, the judge leading the examination needs to send the body to the closest affable specialist to be inspected. On the off chance that they can't do it, they need to record their explanations behind this recorded as a hard copy. The judge will, if functional, illuminate the deceased's relatives about the request and permit them to be available when it is being led.
  • Right of Privacy: In the celebrated judgement of K. S. Puttaswamy vs. The Union of India, the Supreme Court decided that the right to protection is a major right covered under the right of life and freedom.Article 21 of the Constitution of India (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) doesn't explicitly say anything against custodial torment yet its ambit is very broad. It says that no individual will be denied of life or individual freedom besides as per the strategy set up by law. The right incorporates protected assurance against torment, attack, or injury and in this manner goes about as a shield against custodial torment and savagery.
  • Security against Conviction or Enhanced Punishment under Ex-Post Facto Law: Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India gives that, no individual will be sentenced for any offense with the exception of infringement of law in power at the hour of the commission of the demonstration charged as an offense, nor be exposed to any more prominent punishment than that which may have been incurred under the law in power at the hour of the commission of an offense. Hence the article forbids the outlining of ex-post-facto criminal laws and furthermore, precludes the curse of any punishment more noteworthy than that which can be incurred under the law in power at the hour of the commission of the offense. The article forbids the production of another offense with a review impact.
  • Area 164(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 accommodates recording and mark of admissions in appropriate way and underwriting of the admission by an officer such that it has been made wilfully.This right against self-implication is in line with Article 14(3) (g) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which approaches the part states to guarantee that the charged isn't constrained to affirm against himself or to admit responsibility.
  • Reformatory arrangements for injury, torment, or passing on the body of an individual in care are given in the country's Substantive law (Indian Penal Code, 1861). It is appropriate to refer here that arrangements identifying with assault under Section 376 have been revised to explicitly address assault in care by inclusion of Section 376(2) in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983. Vide this revision, discipline for assault submitted on a lady in care by a cop, a local official, an individual from a remedial home, or a clinic staff has been upgraded to at least 10 years, as against 7 years in regard of different instances of assault.
  • Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India gives the captured individual the chance of a fast preliminary. Any captured individual must be delivered before the closest justice inside a time of 24 hours of such Any further detainment needs the endorsement of an officer. This right along these lines permits him to look for discharge on bail, uncover his complaints, assuming any, emerging out of any abuse distributed to him in authority and a free test of the lawfulness of his confinement. Section 56 and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, states exhaustively about these freedoms (creation of the confined individual before a judge and detainment for an outlandish period and without any a unique request of a justice) Section 167(2) of the code additionally makes it officeholder upon the said officer to approve further confinement of the charged, provided that he has been delivered before him face to face interestingly.
  • Section 55A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 makes it compulsory for the individual under whose care, the blamed is kept to really focus on the wellbeing and security.
  • Right not to be a witness against himself: Article 20(3) of the Constitution gives that no blamed individual will be constrained to be an observer against himself. This is vital as it goes about as a shield in getting proof from the denounced through compulsion and torment. Strangely under Section 179 of IPC, each individual legitimately will undoubtedly express reality on any dependent upon a local official. Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 likewise empowers the police to inspect the charged during an examination. Yet, then again, if any strain, inconspicuous or unrefined, mental or physical, immediate or roundabout, yet generous, is applied by the police for acquiring data from a charged it becomes 'constrained declaration', and disregards Article 20(3). The restrictive range of this article capacities as such and goes about as a defend for the charged. This issue came up for conversation in the Nandini Satpathi case.


D K Basu v. State ofWest Bengal (1997) – DK Basu judgement is one of the most significant judgements when it comes to custodial deaths in India and human rights protection. The judgements set down significant rules for the counteraction of police viciousness and torment in care. They address the centre spaces of assurance of central privileges, end of criminalization of police, and changes in policing. The entire issue began in 1986 regarding a letter with respect to custodial deaths in West Bengal. The letter was treated as a Writ Petition, a PIL was started and 4 critical decisions conveyed during 1996 and 2015. North of 20 instructions were given notwithstanding 5 other procedural, observing, and planning orders. the rules likewise indicate that these, famously known as 'DK Basu right' ought to be appropriately educated to the blamed at the ideal opportunity for the arrest. It was additionally unmistakably brought up that any deviation would involve departmental procedures and even welcome hatred. The Supreme Court understood that rights without cures are of no utilization and thus law implementing authorities ought to be made appropriately responsible. It was likewise requested that the abused party was qualified for full money related harms claims for established misdeed. The remainder of the series of decisions were passed in 2015, wherein it was requested that the Human Rights Commission ought to be set up in all states and to empower them to work appropriately, all opening ought to be topped off in these workplaces.

In State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shyamsunder Trivedi And Ors,1995(4) SCC 262 the Supreme Court properly understood that without a trace of direct proof, it turns out to be progressively difficult to prosecute the at fault police authorities. As all police officers would attempt to save their associates, the Court requested for addition of Section 114-B into the Indian Evidence Act 1872, This would guarantee that assuming the injury was caused during the custody, the court would assume that the police officer having authority of the individual is capable. Subsequently it turns around the weight of verification. This proposal was made by the Law Commission, not once yet twice (in its 113th and 152nd report) yet will be yet to be made a law however the bill was presented in 2017.

In Joginder Kumar v. State of UP, the Supreme court requested that no arrest can be made on simple charge or doubt. It gave a few orders on the modalities to be followed at the hour of the arrest of the individual. The arrested individual would have the right that any of his companions or family members be educated with regards to his arrest and area regarding detainment. The police would illuminate him about this right and make an appropriate passage in the journal of the points of interest of the individual who has been educated regarding the arrest. The justice before whom the arrested individual would be brought would likewise guarantee that these mandates have been clung to by the police.

Smt. Soubhagya vs The Chief Secretary, Sangaiyya vs The State Of Tamil Nadu, S. Unnikrishnan Nair vs Union Of India, K.K. Rajan vs Union Of India are some of the other landmark judgements relating to custodial deaths in India.

This works as evidence that the Supreme Court has been implementing new laws in order to protect the human rights of individuals. Despite all this, the custodial deaths in India keep occurring every day.


In India at least 5 people die to custodial deaths every day. The Supreme Court has stated Custodial deaths to be “one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by law” and has tried to implement several laws to prevent custodial violence. In spite of this there are several deaths due to custodial violence every single day. According to a report, in 2020, Uttar Pradesh recorded the most deaths due to custodial violence in India. It seems highly unlikely that the rate of deaths, both judicial or custodial, might reduce unless the police officers and other authorities start taking into consideration the laws that are being implemented.

"Loved reading this piece by Yogeshwari Sirsikar?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

Category Others, Other Articles by - Yogeshwari Sirsikar