income tax

Patna HC Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation for Victim of Custodial Torture

Patna HC Orders State Government to Compensate Victim of Custodial Torture

Custodial torture is a detestable violation of human rights, deserving unwavering condemnation. It is crucial for those responsible for such abuses to face considerable penalties, including imprisonment, reinforcing that the legal rights of all citizens in India are sacrosanct. Incidents of police brutality often arise from a system lacking accountability, where offenders frequently evade significant repercussions, resulting only in temporary suspensions before resuming their duties. This cycle of impunity requires urgent reform. Current penal laws need immediate revision to impose stricter penalties, conveying the message: "No one is above the law."

Recently, the Patna High Court issued an important judgment in the case of Dinesh Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. The Court mandated the State Government to pay ₹2 lakh in compensation to the victim's father for the serious torture inflicted on his son while in police custody. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, who presided over the Single Judge Bench, highlighted Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which shifts the burden of proof concerning custodial violence onto the police. Additionally, the Superintendent of Police in Siwan was directed to act as the official informant in the related criminal complaint against the involved police officers.

Key Details of the Judgment

In his judgment, Justice Chaudhuri stated, "Death in police custody is one of the gravest crimes in a civilized society" and poses a serious threat to social order. Torture violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution and degrades human dignity. The use of excessive force by police can tarnish the reputation of any civilized nation, thereby allowing officers to operate without accountability. This perspective aligns with observations made by the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi & Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Singh's petition alleged that his son, Yogesh Kumar Singh, had been assaulted by police officers. The key reliefs sought included:

  1. Action against the police officers for the illegal arrest and assault on Yogesh Kumar Singh.
  2. Enforcement of Sections 56 and 57 of the Cr.P.C., mandating timely production of arrested individuals before a magistrate.
  3. Compliance with Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., highlighting that the arrest lacked lawful justification.
  4. Additional appropriate relief as deemed necessary.

Case Circumstances

Yogesh Kumar Singh was arrested based on statements from co-accused individuals linked to Siwan Muffasil. The legitimacy of this arrest is questionable, as such confessions often lack evidentiary credence. Investigations revealed that he was detained at the Muffasil Police Station, where he suffered serious injuries. Medical assessments reported multiple bruises and pain indicative of assault.

Notably, the Court determined that after his arrest, Yogesh Kumar Singh was solely in police custody and incurred injuries that necessitated hospitalization. Despite complaints regarding police brutality being lodged with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, no legal action was initiated to commence a preliminary inquiry.

Conclusions and Directives

The Court concluded that the police personnel are best placed to explain the injuries sustained by Yogesh Kumar Singh. Their failure to clarify the circumstances surrounding the custodial violence permits the Court to presume malpractice. In light of this, it mandated:

  • All police officers on duty during the incident must account for their actions.
  • The Superintendent of Police is required to file a criminal complaint against the offending officers as per legal provisions regarding custodial violence.
  • The Home Department must compensate the victim's family ₹2 lakh within four weeks.
  • The Principal Secretary of the Home Department is tasked with executing this compensation order.
  • The Superintendent of Police in Siwan is instructed to investigate the incident within the statutory timeframe set forth in Section 167(5) of the Cr.P.C.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of accountability in custodial torture cases, ensuring the protection of legal rights.

Changes in Compensation Standards and New Criminal Laws (2024)

  1. Recent changes indicate state-level increases in compensation (e.g., Tamil Nadu and Delhi raised compensation to ₹7.5 lakh for custodial deaths during 2023–2025).

  2. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, effective from July 1, 2024, introduces:

  • Section 120(2) detailing punishment for custodial torture.
  • Mandates for CCTV recordings of interrogations and medical examinations.
  1. Pending Central Legislation includes:
  • The Prevention of Custodial Torture Bill, 2023 (currently in Rajya Sabha), proposing compensation ranging from ₹10–20 lakh for victims and criminal liability for public servants.
  1. Legal Developments post-2024 include:
  • BNS Section 187(3) extending police custody limits to 60–90 days (compared to 15 days under the CrPC), raising risks of custodial abuse.
  • NHRC Guidelines (2025) necessitating 24-hour reporting of custodial deaths and independent inquiries.
  1. Judicial Precedents (2024–2025):
  • In Indira v. State Human Rights Commission (2025), the Supreme Court upheld compensation for custodial torture even without direct proof of police causation.
  • The Delhi High Court (March 2025) ordered ₹5 lakh compensation for illegal detention, emphasizing adherence to procedural safeguards established by the BNS.