The Supreme Court has decided to examine if the death of a 35-year-old painter, whose battered body was released to his family nine years ago by the Tamil Nadu Police, was a case of custodial torture.
Subramani, who belonged to the Adi Dravidar Scheduled Caste, was allegedly picked up by the police and lodged for nearly a week at the Neyveli Township Police Station in 2015. The prosecution linked him to the murder of a woman a few days before.
Subramani’s wife, represented by senior advocate P.B. Suresh and Prasanna S., said he was kept in illegal custody without any evidence against him and subjected to brutal torture.
Medical statements of the doctors showed that the body of the young man was “swollen due to beating and both the big toes were clawed and bleeding”. The inquest report, according to the widow, revealed her husband was assaulted with a blunt object, possibly a wooden rod.
In 2022, the Special Court under the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act altered the charges against the accused police officers from culpable homicide not amounting to murder to Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code.
However, on appeal by the accused policemen, the Madras High Court set aside the alteration of charges in March 2024.
A Supreme Court Bench headed by Hrishikesh Roy recently issued notice to the State and the accused persons. The apex court stayed the trial in the case until it decided the question of enhancement of the charges.
Mr. Suresh said the High Court had plainly erred as the facts clearly showed an “egregious case of deliberately inflicted custodial violence and torture leading to the unnatural death of the deceased”.
The petition filed by Subramani’s widow questioned the High Court’s finding that there was no nexus whatsoever between the injuries of the deceased and the cause of death. It said medical statements of the doctors and the inquest report were sufficient to show the torture inflicted on the deceased
She had referred to how the Crime Branch CID, Villupuram, to which the case was transferred, had sought a magisterial inquiry into the death. Following which, an inquiry was conducted by a Judicial Magistrate, who examined 18 witnesses in the case.
The special leave petition said the inquiry report’s key findings included illegal custody of Subramani, no discrepancy among the statements of the witnesses who corroborated the claim of illegal custody, existence of multiple injuries on the body, and signs of trauma identified with torture.
