Supreme Court: In a case concerning the custodial death of a man arrested for allegedly possessing 6 litres of raw Mahua liquor, a Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., directed the CBI to register a regular criminal case and investigate the circumstances leading to his death, while directing the State of Chhattisgarh to pay ₹25 lakhs as interim compensation to his legal heirs.
Taking serious exception to the stand of the State authorities, particularly the DGP, DG (Prisons) and Principal Secretary (Home), that no FIR could be registered as the judicial inquiry report under Section 176, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) had not been received by the police, the Court termed the explanation a “cover-up story” and an attempt to mislead the Court. Noting the material discrepancy between the jail medical report and the post-mortem report, which recorded multiple antemortem injuries and attributed the death to complications arising from a head injury caused by a hard and blunt object, the Court held that the possibility of the deceased having sustained injuries during custody could not be ruled out. The Court accordingly directed the CBI to conduct a thorough investigation and proceed against all officials found responsible for the custodial violence in accordance with law.
Background
The petitioners, being the wife and children and legal heirs of the deceased, approached the Court by way of a special leave petition, aggrieved by the judgment dated 3 October 2024 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 76 of 2024.
The deceased was arrested on 18 January 2024 in connection with FIR No. 47 of 2024 registered at Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, under Section 34(2), Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915. The allegation against him was that he was in possession of 6 litres of raw Mahua liquor, valued at approximately ₹ 1200. He was arrested and thereafter remanded to custody and lodged in Central Jail, Bilaspur.
On 21 January 2024, owing to deterioration in his health, the deceased was referred from the Central Jail to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. He died on 22 January 2024 at about 6.00 a.m. while undergoing treatment.
The post-mortem examination revealed multiple ante-mortem injuries. The Medical Board opined that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest resulting from complications arising out of a head injury caused by a hard and blunt object. Since the deceased had died while in custody, a judicial inquiry under Section 176 CrPC was initiated. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, conducted the inquiry and submitted a report dated 22 July 2024, opining that the death appeared to have been caused due to complications arising from the head injury.
Despite the findings recorded in the judicial inquiry, no effective action was taken against the persons responsible for the custodial death, nor was any compensation granted to the deceased’s legal heirs. Consequently, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking compensation of ₹50 lakhs and appropriate action against the officers responsible for the custodial death.
By judgment dated 3 October 2024, the High Court held that the deceased had been subjected to violence while in custody and that his death was attributable to such custodial violence. However, it awarded only ₹1 lakh as compensation and did not issue any consequential direction for registration of an FIR or investigation against the persons responsible for the custodial death.
Aggrieved by the inadequate compensation and the failure of the High Court to direct criminal action or investigation against the responsible officers, the petitioners preferred the present special leave petition before the Supreme Court.
Analysis
The Court expressed serious disapproval of the stand taken by the senior State authorities, particularly the DGP, DG (Prisons) and Principal Secretary (Home), who sought to justify the failure to register a criminal case on the ground that the judicial inquiry report under Section 176 CrPC had not been received by the police. The Court found this explanation to be “a cover-up story” and an attempt to mislead the Court, observing that the State was admittedly aware of the judicial inquiry and that the report dated 22 July 2024 was available on record. The Court held that such conduct reflected a disturbing disregard of the statutory procedure governing custodial deaths.
The Court further noted the material discrepancy between the jail medical report, which attributed the death to cardiopulmonary arrest with aspiration pneumonitis and alcoholic withdrawal/delirium tremens, and the post-mortem report, which recorded multiple ante-mortem injuries and attributed the cause of death to a head injury caused by a hard and blunt object.
The Court further observed that the post-mortem report was placed on record for the first time only through an additional affidavit filed by the State pursuant to the Court’s own order dated 28 July 2026 and had never been placed before the High Court. The petitioners submitted that they too had been able to access the report only at this stage. The Court noted that this delayed disclosure further underscored the dilatory approach adopted by the State authorities.
The post-mortem report opined on the approximate age of the injuries: the laceration on the occipital scalp was assessed as having occurred within one day, the swelling above the right wrist within two days, and the contusions on the thigh and nape of the neck as being 2 to 6 days old. Having regard to the age of the injuries, the Court held that the possibility of the deceased having sustained multiple injuries during the period of his custody could not be ruled out. The circumstances, therefore, clearly warranted immediate registration of an FIR and a thorough investigation.
Decision
In view of the gravity of the matter, the Court directed the CBI to register a regular criminal case and entrusted the investigation to a senior officer, with a direction to examine the conduct of the State officials concerned and proceed against all officials found responsible for the custodial violence in accordance with law. The DGP, Chhattisgarh was directed to transmit the complete records to the Director, CBI within 1 week.
As regards compensation, the Court noted that the State did not dispute the High Court’s finding that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of his family and had died an unnatural death on account of violence suffered during custody. Accordingly, as an interim measure, the Court directed the State of Chhattisgarh to pay ₹25 lakhs to the petitioners within 4 weeks, while reserving the determination of the final quantum of compensation for the final adjudication of the petition. The matter was directed to be listed on 13 October 2026.
[Lahra Bai Tamre v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1550, decided on 12-8-2026]
*Judgement authored by: Justice Sandeep Mehta
