Illegal Detention and Death in Custody
On 18 February 2022, Kalicharan Kewat was picked up by Balidih police in connection with an alleged petty theft. What followed was not a lawful arrest but illegal detention:
-
No arrest memo was prepared
-
He was not produced before a magistrate
-
Due process under law was completely bypassed
By the morning of 19 February 2022, Kalicharan was dead.
Media reports, including Dainik Bhaskar (20 February 2022), documented mass protests outside the police station. The victim’s elderly father’s words captured the human cost of custodial violence:
“The police have snatched away my support in old age. I want justice.”
Police Denial vs Judicial Truth
The police initially attempted to normalize the death by citing intoxication and medical causes, highlighting the absence of visible external injuries. This narrative, however, collapsed under judicial scrutiny.
A Judicial Magistrate–led inquiry found:
-
Kalicharan was illegally detained
-
Mandatory arrest safeguards were violated
-
Co-accused Sanjay Singh testified that both were beaten in custody
-
The death raised strong suspicion of custodial ill-treatment
The inquiry unequivocally recommended fixing responsibility on the police personnel involved.
NHRC’s Constitutional Reasoning
The NHRC’s detailed proceedings reaffirmed core constitutional principles:
-
Article 21 guarantees life with dignity
-
Custodial torture is a crime against humanity
-
Sovereign immunity cannot shield gross human rights violations
The Commission held the State of Jharkhand vicariously liable, emphasizing that when death occurs in custody, the State cannot escape responsibility.
₹5 Lakh Compensation: Breaking the Wall of Impunity
The NHRC’s direction to pay ₹5 lakh compensation is not symbolic charity—it is a legal consequence.
By confirming the Show Cause Notice after repeated non-response from the State, the NHRC:
-
Rejected institutional silence as a defense
-
Forced the State to acknowledge culpability
-
Converted denial into financial and moral accountability
In custodial death cases, compensation serves as a public admission of wrongdoing. It disrupts the entrenched practice where victims die, files close, and officials walk free.
Why the Amount Matters
The amount—₹5 lakh—matters because it:
-
Establishes a benchmark for custodial death compensation
-
Signals that marginalized lives carry constitutional value
-
Creates a deterrent against routine custodial violence
The message is unambiguous:
If the State kills in custody, the State must pay—and answer.
Justice Delayed, But Not Denied
Despite clear findings, the State of Jharkhand ignored:
-
Show Cause Notices (April 2024)
-
Multiple NHRC reminders
Only on 21 November 2024, nearly three years after the death, did the NHRC confirm its recommendation, assuming the State had “nothing to urge” in its defense.
This prolonged silence itself constituted secondary victimization of the family.
Compensation Is Relief—Accountability Is Justice
While compensation provides economic support and symbolic recognition, it is not justice by itself. The NHRC rightly paired compensation with:
-
Disciplinary action
-
Criminal prosecution
Unless these measures are pursued rigorously, compensation risks becoming a transactional closure rather than a transformative remedy.
From Compensation to Structural Change
The Kalicharan Kewat case demonstrates that impunity is not broken by sympathy—but by consequence.
The ₹5 lakh compensation order stands as:
-
A crack in the wall of police impunity
-
A reaffirmation of constitutional dignity
-
A warning that silence will no longer protect State violence
True justice now requires:
-
Swift prosecution of responsible officers
-
Enforcement of arrest safeguards
-
Independent oversight of police custody
-
Zero tolerance for custodial torture
Kalicharan Kewat’s life cannot be restored—but his death must not be forgotten, normalized, or repeated.
Breaking impunity begins when the State is forced to pay for its violence—and answer for its silence.
_page-0001.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment