CUSTODIAL DEATH

     CUSTODIAL DEATH

**Author:- Nandini maheshwari, a Student of Sage University indore

Detestable practices, subjective and retaliatory killings, legal torment, shootout, and so on are not many among different language that feature the current situation of police severity either through extra-judicial killings or custodial deaths. Ironically, neither of these terms have a definition in law till date. Where the previous is killing of supposed blamed by administrative specialists with no legal request, the latter is passing through one or the other ailment, torment, self-destruction, or mishap in police guardianship or legal authority.

It is one of the cruelest forms of human rights violation. It is a sheer violation of law and constitutional values of a democratic and justice loving country like India. For a long time, police torture and detainee abuse have been a major source of worry. To get faiths and statements from the accused, the police bring into play third-degree methods, and those statements don’t have any value in eyes of law as per section 161 of Cr.P.C. The number of such accidents has risen over the years, in the recent past we saw a number of police encounters or custodial deaths.

The IPC contains some remedies for dealing with this problem. The SC has also given directives and instructions to the Union and State governments from time to time, urging them to take the problem seriously, undertake measures to reduce cases of custodial deaths and extrajudicial killings as they are against the principles enshrined in our constitution and a sheer violation of a detainee’s human rights.

Legal Provisions Related to Custodial Torture

• Protection against Conviction or Enhanced Punishment under Ex-Post Facto Law: Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India provides that, no person shall be convicted of an offence unless the act charged as an offence was committed in violation of the law in effect at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor shall any person be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been imposed under the law in effect at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence.

• Protection against Double Jeopardy: Article 20(2) of the Constitution states that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

• Right against self-incrimination: Article 20(3) of the Constitution provides that no accused person will be compelled to be a witness against himself.

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The Indian judiciary has interpreted this clause to guarantee the right to be free of torture. Article 21’s definition of “life or personal liberty” includes a guarantee against torture and assault by the State and its functionaries against a person taken into custody, and no sovereign immunity can be invoked to shield the State from liability arising from such criminal use of force against the captive person.

• Article 22 establishes four essential fundamental rights. These include being notified of the grounds of arrest, having the right to be represented by a lawyer of his choosing, preventative detention legislation, and appearing before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours after being arrested.

• Article 22 establishes four essential fundamental rights. These include being notified of the grounds of arrest, having the right to be represented by a lawyer of his choosing, preventative detention legislation, and appearing before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours after being arrested.

• Under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act (1872), the investigating officer is prohibited from making any inducement, threat, or promise, but he is also prohibited from forcing any person to make any statement that he would like to make on his own free will under Section 163 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

• Section 49 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, likewise serves as a safeguard to excessive incarceration. It stipulates that an arrested individual may not be held for longer than is required to prevent him from fleeing.

Landmark Judgments on Custodial Deaths

• Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P and Others: – Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution contain inherent rights that must be recognized and rigorously safeguarded. The Hon’ble Court issued the following instructions for effective implementation of these basic rights:

When the detained individual is transported to the police station, the officer must tell him of his right. It will be necessary to record who was notified of the arrest in the journal. Articles 21 and 22(1) must be recognized to be the source of these power safeguards, and they must be vigorously enforced. It was also stated that it is the responsibility of the Magistrate in front of whom the arrested individual is brought to ensure that these criteria have been met.

• In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the mother of the dead claimed compensation for a breach of her son’s basic right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution while her son was in the custody of Odisha (then Orissa) Police. The court found the state liable for violations of basic rights and ordered criminal charges to be brought against the officers involved. More crucially, it directed that Rs 1.50 lakh in compensation be provided to the deceased’s family. There was no systematic procedure for granting compensation in situations of custodial death prior to this judgement. On this aspect, the ruling was historic and cleared the way for future developments.

CONCLUSION 

Long-term justice trials result in long-term prison sentences for the guilty, as well as an increased risk of detention torture and, in many cases, death. The police personnel try to abuse their power and duty which is conferred to save the society from crime. But this issue can be solved with stringent implementation of current laws and working upon the loopholes in the present system.

 We also need some police reforms such as guidelines for educating and training officials involved in cases involving deprivation of liberty should also be developed, because torture cannot be effectively prevented until senior police officers wisely anticipate the gravity of such issues and a clear reorientation from current practises is devised.

Moreover, Independent and qualified individuals should be granted unrestricted and regular access to sites of confinement for inspection. In police stations, including interrogation rooms, CCTV cameras should be placed. Surprise inspections by Non-Official Visitors (NOVs) should also be made necessary as a preventive measure against incarceration torture, as proposed by the Supreme Court in its landmark DK Basu case decision in 2015.

The criminal justice system also includes a law enforcement agency, whose principal aim is to reduce crime and defend the public’s rights. This is the core of the rule of law. Custodial death and extrajudicial killings, on the other hand, have a negative influence not just on the legal system but also on law enforcement, since it tarnishes their image as a whole. The act of praising “illegality” may undermine public trust in the judicial and criminal justice system. Such behavior perpetuates a vicious circle of law and rights violations, reducing the “rule of law” to a much darshak (mute spectator). Such acts are associated by law enforcement and executive agencies with a moral authority that they owe to the State, the same moral policy that is deprived of due process and a fair trial. This scenario necessitates the active participation of the Supreme Court and other state high courts in investigating such matters on a Suo motu basis. This will send a clear message that acting outside of the law and the constitution is not acceptable.