Custody death negation of rule of law, human rights

Very recently, over the death of a 26-year-old tribal man at the Aainthapali police station of Sambalpur town,  tension and public fury prevailed and an irate mob created violence and ransacked the police station, destroying properties by setting fire to it besides damaging and burning the vehicles inside the police station. In the incident, both police personnel men and attackers received injuries. Allegedly, the prelude to the incident was that the tribal youth was suspected of committing theft of jewellery and cash from a nearby marriage Mandap during a ceremony. He was brought to the police station and taken into custody. In the afternoon of he was found dead, news spread about the death while he was in police lockup. People of the area assembled at the police station. Police explained that the boy committed suicide by hanging himself on the grill of the Hazat with the help of a blanket given to him in the previous night due to cold. This plea of the police personnel was dismissed by the public who rather got infuriated further, charging he police of beating the boy to death in the lockup. Thereafter, there was widespread violence in and around the police station; and to save themselves from the attack, policemen hid themselves behind the police station.

 After this incident, immediately the Inspector-in-Charge of the police station, the diary officer and the sentry on duty have been placed under suspension. Since the allegation is regarding the death of the youth in police custody, the Human Rights Protection Cell (HRPC) is now probing into the case.

In this backdrop, the moot question is that whether the plea of the police that the victim committed suicide in the lockup by hanging himself is a true fact or it is a clear case of custodial death due to police atrocity and torture on him.

It now all depends on the inquiry report of the HRPC basing on a medical examination report, postmortem report, etc., and other surrounding factors and circumstances leading to the death of the youth. Time will show regarding the complicity of the police for the death of due to assault and manhandling in the custody which is certainly a sensitive issue. However in the context, fact remains that custodial torture, degrading human treatment and violence on a person leading to his death while in police custody are all opposed to Rule of Law and amounts to gross violation of human rights in the present era of human rights consciousness closely on the heels of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) charter and United Nation protocols regarding treatments of the prisoners. In this context, it is gratifying to note that Article-10(1) of the International Covenant on civil and political rights categorically says, “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect.” Therefore, basing on our Constitutional provisions and the United Nations standard guidelines for the treatment of prisoners, it is duty of all prison and police officials to safeguard human rights of the persons in their custody.

In this backdrop, the Supreme Court in its anxiety to protect the basic rights of an arrested person has prescribed certain legislative safeguards, which has touched the spinal cord of human rights jurisprudence in the landmark case of DK Basu Vs State of West Bengal. In this judgment, the entire gamut of law relating to rights of an arrested person in our criminal justice system has undergone a sea change. Significantly, the court held in the DK Basu case, “The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, under-trials, detunes and other prisoners in custody except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law.

Custodial violence, including torture and death in the lockups, strikes a blow at the Rule of Law which demands that the power of the executive should not only be derived from law but also that the same should be limited by law. Transparency of action and accountability perhaps are two possible safeguards which this court must insist upon.”

It is heartening to note that the rights of a person in custody are now firmly secured based on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in the DK Basu case and earlier decisions of the court in the cases of  Sunil Batra, Charls Sobharaj and Fransis Coralie Mullin. It has been held that a person in custody, a detune and a prisoner has the same fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution as other citizens do have except certain rights taken away on the face of the imprisonment according to jail manual. This is now a part of prison justice that a person in custody is not a non-person. Therefore, basing on the Constitutional mandate and the rulings of the Supreme Court on this issue, death in police custody is a flagrant violation of human rights.

Squarely for this reason, there is always public anger, resentment and violence whenever there is allegation of death in police custody. For some past years, the National Human Right Commission (NHRC) has taken up the issue seriously and has directed to all authorities that whenever there is a custodial death, this has to be informed to the NHRC within 24 hours.

Of late, the apex court, the NHRC and the State Human Rights Commissions have been awarding exemplary compensation to the next of kin of the deceased which has added a new chapter in the area of victim logy.

Law enjoins that the right of a person in custody has to be protected; and violation entails punishment. So, the law enforcing authorities of the state should be vigilant and rise to the occasion to protect the basic rights of a person in the custody.

(The writer is an ex-Special Judge, CBI, Mob: 9437022723)