Hansura Bai & Anr. vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

15 May 2025

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 2647 of 2025

Result

Disposed

Bench

Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta

Citation

[2025] 6 S.C.R. 280 : 2025 INSC 711

Acts & Sections

IPC

Issue for consideration

Whether the Single Judge erred in rejecting the prayers made by the appellants (victim’s family) for transferring the investigation into the custodial death of the victim, to some other investigating agency; and to direct the release of sole eye-witness (victim’s uncle) to the custodial torture, on bail.

Headnote

Custodial death – Transfer of investigation – When to be allowed – ‘nemo judex in causa sua’:

Held: The incident involved the death of a young man in police custody by the local police officials, where though an FIR was registered, but till date even after lapse of eight months, not one of the police official has been arrested – Involvement of the police officials in the custodial death of the victim is clear from the statement of the sole eye-witness (victim’s uncle) to the custodial torture and is further corroborated during the magisterial inquiry – Local police officials prevented the victims’ family that tried to lodge the FIR immediately after the incident – It was only after the magisterial inquiry was conducted that the FIR was registered wherein the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder was omitted – On facts, the investigation by the local police is not being carried out in a fair and transparent manner – Victim’s uncle expressed serious threat perception at the hands of police and prison officials which was accepted by High Court – Present is a classic case of ‘nemo judex in causa sua’ meaning that ‘no one should be a judge in his own cause’ – Investigation transferred to CBI. [Paras 26-31]

Witness Protection Scheme – Victim’s uncle was sole eyewitness to the torture and custodial death of the victim – Duty of the State to provide him safety and security: Held: On facts, an attempt was made to somehow implicate the victim’s uncle, the star witness of the custodial death, in multiple cases to demoralize him and prevent him from deposing against the errant police officials – Liberty granted to him to directly move the High Court for bail in all the cases where he was implicated after the incident of 13th/14th July, 2024 where he alongwith the victim were forcibly taken away by the police in relation to a theft case – Further, it is the duty of the State to provide him protection either in prison or after being released on bail, direction issued. [Para 36]

Criminal Law – Transfer of investigation – Power to transfer investigation – Exercise of – Discussed. [Para 12]

Judgment Mehta, J. 1. Heard. 2. Leave granted. 3. The appellants herein have approached this Court, through this appeal by special leave, assailing the judgment dated 20th December, 2024, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior1 in Writ Petition No. 33416 of 2024, whereby the learned Single Judge turned down the prayer made by the appellants for transferring the investigation into the custodial death of Deva Pardhi to some other investigating agency; and to direct the release of sole eye-witness to the custodial torture, namely, Gangaram Pardhi on bail. 4. Facts as emerging

View Subscription Plans →