“From Custody to Coffin: A Reality India Refuses to Face” written by Khushi Yadav, intern at PVCHR:
Summary:
This poignant article by Khushi Yadav explores the harsh reality of custodial violence in India, using the tragic case of Sahiba Bano’s husband in Sonbhadra (2021) as a central narrative. Arrested under false charges and later found dead in custody, his case exposes the deep flaws in India’s criminal justice system—ranging from police brutality, extortion, and religious abuse to systemic denial of justice. Despite constitutional protections (Articles 14, 19, 20, and 21) and statutory safeguards under Indian laws, custodial deaths remain rampant—over 2,300 reported in 2021–22, with accountability being rare.
The article highlights legal safeguards under CrPC, IPC, BNSS, and Indian Evidence Act, supported by key Supreme Court judgments. It also critiques India’s failure to enact a standalone anti-torture law or ratify the UN Convention Against Torture.
Conclusion: The piece is a call to action for structural and cultural reform in law enforcement and judicial accountability. Custodial deaths are not isolated tragedies—they are systemic failures and wounds on Indian democracy.
From Custody to Coffin: “A Reality India Refuses to Face
"A
dead man in custody is not just a tragedy, it is a declaration that the law has
surrendered to violence."- K.G. Kannabiran
Sometimes, we
read quotes like this and move on. But when you see it happen in real life, it
stays with you forever. I remember standing outside a police station during my
fieldwork, where a mother waited for hours just to get a glimpse of her son. He
had been inside for three days — no call, no update, no answer. That’s when I
understood—this is not just fear. It’s a deep wound our system keeps hiding.
Since I
was a child, I often heard people say, “पुलिस का चक्कर बेकार है।” I didn’t
understand it back then. I used to think—if the police are here to help us, why
are people so afraid of them? Now, as a law student and a human rights trainee,
I see things differently. I read laws that talk about justice, but I also see
how those in power sometimes hurt the same people they are supposed to protect.
What I heard in my childhood wasn’t just fear—it was people’s pain. And today,
I can feel how real that pain is.
“Sonbhadra, 2021: A
Wife, A Prison, and A Silence Too Loud”
Sahiba Bano, a 34-year-old woman from Banaura Trava in Sonbhadra
district, faced a nightmare no citizen should ever endure. On 7 February 2021, her husband, an auto-rickshaw driver, was
falsely arrested by the police on charges of selling
illegal drugs. He was booked under Sections 8 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
When Sahiba went to the police station seeking information, the Station
House Officer (SHO) not only demanded
a bribe of ₹10,000,
but also molested her, hurling religiously charged abuses. Just five days later, on 12 February 2021, the police informed her that her husband
had allegedly died
by suicide while in
custody.Shocked and unconvinced, Sahiba refused to accept the body, suspecting foul play. However, under immense
pressure, she was forced to go ahead with the last rites. Relatives who saw the
body later informed her that it bore visible injury marks—suggesting clear signs of custodial violence, not suicide.
The incident was reported to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) under Diary No. 6325/IN/2023. Following an investigation, the government
sanctioned a compensation
of ₹8 lakh and suspended eight police personnel involved in the case. But this isn’t just
about money or some official apology. It’s about a system that failed an
innocent family. Sahiba’s story shows us a harsh truth — that sometimes,
justice doesn’t come through the courts, but through courage, questions, and
the voices that refuse to stay silent. What happened to her husband isn’t an
isolated case.
1)
According
to the NHRC, over 2,300 custodial deaths were reported in India in just one year (2021–22) — with 155 of
them in police custody, like Sahiba’s case. That means almost 5 people die every day in custody, and yet, real accountability remains
rare. Many such families are still waiting, hoping someone will listen — and
that one day, the system will answer for the silence it keeps burying.
Constitutional Rights
of Prisoners in India: Still Human, Still
Protected
One of the most
powerful and beautiful aspects of the Indian Constitution is that it protects
every person even those in police or judicial custody- A person does not cease to be a citizen
merely because they are in custody. Even under arrest or while imprisoned,
every individual retains certain fundamental rights, most
notably under Articles 14, 19, 20(1), (3) and 21.
1-Article 14 – Right to Equality Before Law
2- Article 19 – Protection of Certain Freedoms
Although prisoners lose certain liberties due to
incarceration, two specific freedoms under Article 19 continue to apply:
3-Article 20(1) – Protection in respect of
conviction for offences
Article20(1) states that“No
person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force
at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be
subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under
the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.”This
protection applies equally to those in custody. Subjecting an individual to
retrospective punishment or excessive penalties while in detention violates
this constitutional safeguard.
Article 20(3) – Protection Against
Self-Incrimination
Article
21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
This is
the most vital of all rights for an arrested or imprisoned person. Article 21
declares that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law.”
The
Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that this includes:
- Protection
from torture and inhumane treatment
- Right
to medical care
- Right
to legal aid
- Right
to fair and speedy trial
- Right
to die with dignity, and live with basic human decency
even in prison
Legal
Safeguards under Indian Criminal Laws
v Section
46 of the CrPC, relating to the manner in which arrest is to be made, is provided
under Section 43 of the BNSS. It limits the use of force during arrest
and prohibits causing the death of a person unless they pose a serious threat.
v Section
49 of the CrPC, which prohibits unnecessary restraint of an arrested person, continues
as Section 49 of the BNSS without major change. It ensures that an
arrestee is not subjected to more restraint than necessary.
v Section
50 of the CrPC, which mandates that the arrested person be informed of the grounds of
arrest and the right to bail, corresponds to Section 48 of the BNSS.
v Section
54 of the CrPC, providing the right to medical examination of an arrested person, is
now found in Section 51 of the BNSS. It requires a registered medical
officer to examine the person soon after arrest.
v Section
176(1A) of the CrPC, which mandates a judicial inquiry in cases of
custodial death or disappearance, is now provided under Section 198 of the
BNSS.
v Section
24 of the Indian Evidence Act, which renders a confession inadmissible if made
under inducement, threat, or promise, corresponds to Section 22 of the BSA.
v Section
25 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that no confession made to a police
officer shall be proved against an accused, is incorporated as Section 23 of
the BSA.
v Section
26 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides that a confession made while in
police custody is not admissible unless made in the immediate presence of a
magistrate, is now codified under Section 24 of the BSA.
v Section
330 of the IPC, which deals with voluntarily causing hurt to extort a confession or
information, is now incorporated as Section 113 of the BNS. It provides
for imprisonment up to seven years along with fine.
v Section
164(4) of the CrPC, which requires confessions to be made voluntarily
before a magistrate and properly recorded, is now reflected under Section
183(4) of the BNSS..
Judicial and Institutional Safeguards Against Custodial
Violence
The Supreme Court in the landmark case D.K.
Basu v. State of West Bengal laid down essential guidelines to prevent
custodial torture and unlawful arrests.
o
Police
must carry clear identification
and name tags.
o
A memo of arrest must be prepared, signed by the arrested
person and a witness.
o
The relative or friend of the arrested person must be informed
immediately.
o
The
arrestee must be informed of their right to legal counsel.
o
Time,
place, and reasons for arrest must be recorded in the diary.
o
Medical
examination must be
conducted every 48 hours by a doctor.
o
The
arrestee should be presented before a Magistrate within 24 hours.
o
Copies
of arrest records must be sent to district headquarters.
o
The
arrestee should be allowed to meet a lawyer during interrogation.
o
Inspection
of lockups must be
regularly conducted.
o A custody memo must be maintained with all details of the arrest and detention.
The National
Human Rights Commission (NHRC), under its powers from the Protection of
Human Rights Act, 1993, has issued strict guidelines to be followed in
every case of custodial death or rape.
o
Every custodial death must be reported to NHRC within 24 hours, irrespective of pending
post-mortem.
o
A judicial inquiry under Section 176(1A) of CrPC is mandatory and must be
conducted independently
o
All relevant evidence — including CCTV footage, medical
reports, and FIR copies — must be
preserved and sent to the NHRC.
o
The NHRC may recommend compensation, and where
foul play is suspected, criminal and departmental action.
o
A complete report must be
submitted to NHRC within two months, including
findings from inquest, post-mortem, and police inquiry
Conclusion
In spite
of constitutional protections and statutory safeguards, the ground reality
remains haunting—custodial torture and deaths continue with chilling
regularity. Some of the worst human rights violations occur not during riots or
public unrest but behind the locked doors of police stations. Law enforcement
agencies, in their desperation to extract confessions, often turn to
third-degree torture, illegal detention, and manipulation of arrest records.
Every
day, newspapers carry headlines of rape, assault, and death in custody, turning
public outrage into routine numbness. The law says one thing; the ground
reality says another. And this disconnect is eroding the credibility of the
Rule of Law in India.
Despite
calls from the international community, India has still not ratified the UN
Convention Against Torture. Even after the Law Commission’s strong 2017
proposal, there is still no standalone anti-torture law in the country.
This legal void only emboldens impunity.
We must
ask: What is justice if not the protection of the powerless from the powerful?
Laws without enforcement are mere words; rights without remedies are illusions.
If we are to uphold the promise of our Constitution, we need not only legal
reform, but a cultural shift within institutions—anchored in transparency,
accountability, and above all, humanity.
Until
then, every custodial death is not just a statistic. It is a wound on the soul
of democracy.
The article titled "Standing Up for Justice: Young Legal Minds Confront Custodial Violence in India" was written by Khushi Yadav and Aditya Mishra, interns at the People’s Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR), and published on 26 June 2025, the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. The piece is available on the official PVCHR blog: https://pvchr.blogspot.com/2025/06/standing-up-for-justice-young-legal.html.
#StandUpForJustice #EndCustodialViolence #YouthForHumanRights #JusticeForAll #StopTorture #CustodialDeaths #HumanRightsIndia #VoicesForJustice #RuleOfLaw #LegalEmpowerment #PVCHRInterns #26June #JusticeMatters #NoMoreSilence #RightToDignity.
No comments:
Post a Comment