Introduction

As a result of the police officer's shooting of George Floyd, a massive movement has emerged in the United States and throughout the world in recent days. A few days after Floyd's death, outrage erupted in India over the custodial torture and subsequent deaths of a father and son at the Sathankulam police station in the thootukudi district of Tamil Nadu. The alleged charge against them was even more shocking: they had kept their shop open past the permitted time. Since this was a minor offence for which the accused should have been granted bail, the magistrate's role in the case is also under scrutiny.

Until a radio RJ broadcast a video of the incident, no one would have paid any attention to this case. However, the public's outcry over the incident has once again brought scrutiny to police behaviour, leading to an inquiry and the arrest of the officers involved. Concerns about police brutality, the need for anti-torture laws, and other concerns in the police force have prompted many to speak out.

Custodial death- Movies vs. Reality

https://www.newsclick.in/sites/default/files/styles/responsive_885/public/2018-06/Custodial%20Deaths.jpg?itok=C2kaO8TR

Unfortunately, movies and television programmes have further contributed to the glamour and normalisation of custodial violence, which we have ignored for so long that it has gotten totally ingrained in our roots and is now considered normal.

A study found that when a movie or TV show's main character engaged in a violent act or staged encounter, viewers were more likely to approve of the behaviour depicted onscreen. Most people think that the police's job isn't to protect the law and order, but rather to find criminals and punish them severely.

But in reality, custodial torture as a kind of abuse happens when a suspect is in police custody. The Supreme Court has ruled that torturing someone while they're in jail is a gross violation of human rights that significantly diminishes their sense of self-worth.

In a country like India, where the rule of law underpins all actions and the right to life and liberty is the most treasured fundamental right, torture and the use of third-degree methods on suspects during illegal detention and police remand taint the entire system of administration. Human rights are secondary in this sad situation. It is now generally accepted that torture during imprisonment is an inevitable part of any investigation. Investigators are still under the impression that, with enough coercion, the suspect will break. Former Supreme Court justice V.R. Krishna Iyer claims that state-sanctioned custodial torture is worse than terrorist acts. There is a contradiction in the fact that torture still occurs in India. This is due to India being a liberal democracy with clearly established anti-torture constitutional and statutory safeguards that are constantly being enhanced under the watchful eye of a strong and independent court.

The most important step is not passing a law, but rather putting it into practice. Despite having signed the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Treatment in 1997, India has not yet ratified the treaty since it does not have a comprehensive anti-torture statute. In 2017, the Bill Commission proposed an anti-torture bill, but it has not been implemented by the current administration.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees everyone, even those who have been detained, the basic human right to life. Article 22 establishes protections for those who are confined, recognising that these individuals have the same inherent rights as everyone else.

Prevention of torture Bill

To implement the Convention's mandates, the Lok Sabha introduced the Prevention of Torture Bill in 2010. The Lok Sabha voted in favour of the bill on May 6, 2010, making it law. The Bill was then sent to a Select Committee by the Rajya Sabha after the Committee recommended changes to put it more in line with the Convention against Torture.

Rajya Sabha Select Committee Suggestions-

Expanding the definition of torture.
Torturing child and women should have severe punishments.
Setup an independent authority.

After including these recommendations this bill has been presented several times in the Rajya Sabha, but the bill has not been passed yet.

Out of 170 signatories towards the United Nations Convention on Torture and other Cruel, Abhorrent and Demeaning Treatment or Punishment, India is one of the only eight nations not to ratify the Convention. It it’s statement of goals and reasons, the bill declares that ratifying the Convention confirms the Government of India’s commitment to the preservation of basic universal human rights.

Data from the National Human Rights Commission indicates that 2,544 and 1,940 custody deaths were reported nationally in 2021-22 and 2020-21, respectively, as reported by Minister of State for Home Nityanand Rai before the Parliament (NHRC).

Remedies against Custodial Torture:

Constitutional Safeguards in a series of rulings, the Supreme Court has maintained that just because a person is in police custody or under arrest does not deprive him of his basic rights. If his rights are violated, he can sue under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Detention doesn't violate someone's rights. As he enters prison, they don't flee, but they may shrink. However, shrinking cannot reach the level of abuse in captivity that reduces people to animals.

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution grants rights against conviction. The principle of non-retroactivity of penal laws (Nullum crimen sine lege) makes it a violation of a person's fundamental rights to convict and torture him based on a statute. Article 20 prevents double jeopardy (Nemo debet pro eadem causa bis vexari). This Article prevents self-incrimination. Police torture a suspect until he confesses to a crime he didn't commit.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is understood to protect against torture. This is because the right to life is more than an animalistic right. "Life or personal liberty" in Article 21 contains a protection against torture and assault by the State and its functionaries to a person in custody, and no sovereign immunity can be asserted against the State's accountability for such unlawful use of force over the imprisoned person.

Article 22 of the Indian Constitution guarantees four conviction-related rights. These include being notified of the arrest's grounds, being represented by a lawyer of his choice, preventative detention regulations, and being brought before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. These laws are meant to prevent ill-treatment that lacks legal justification or exceeds set limits.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 A confession to a police officer cannot be used against a person accused of any crime (Sec. 25), and a confession produced by threats from an authority figure to prevent temporal evil is irrelevant in criminal proceedings (Sec. 24). Even though custodial torture is not explicitly criminal in India, evidence gathered illegally, including torture is not recognised in courts.

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Sections 46 and 49 safeguard those in custody from torture who are not accused of a death or life sentence offence and during escape. 50-56 comply with Article 22. Sec. 54 of the Code covers custodial torture and violence. When a person in custody alleges ill-treatment, the magistrate must examine his body and record the outcome and reasoning. It allows people to report torture or abuse to the court and request a medical exam. Courts also use compensation. When a magistrate doesn't follow process when hearing a complaint of prison torture, the High Court must intervene under Code Section 482.

Section 176 of the Code requires a magisterial inquiry for any death caused by police custody abuse. Sections 167 and 309 of the Code aim to bring accused persons before the court to protect their rights and interests because their detention is authorised.

Indian police Act Sections 7 and 29 of the Act provide for the dismissal, penalty, or suspension of negligent or unsuitable police personnel. This is because police officers violated constitutional, statutory, with the principles articulated in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal.

Indian Penal Code1860 after the Mathura Rape case, IPC Sec. 376 was amended. Section 376(1)(b) criminalizes police custodial rape. This good change condemns police personnel who abuse their authority.

Sections 330, 331, 342 and 348 of the IPC are intended to dissuade a police officer who is authorised to arrest and interrogate a suspect from utilising third-degree tactics inflicting 'torture'.

Major judgments by Supreme Court in Police Violence and Custodial Death

Rudul Shah vs. State of Bihar (1983)

In this case the Supreme Court held that when a person's fundamental rights are violated by the state, the individual is entitled to monetary damages.

Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1989)

This case established principles for the rights of people who have been arrested, particularly women. In this case, the court emphasised the need of Magistrates informing all arrested people of their rights.

Joginder Kumar V. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994)

In this case the Supreme Court held that any arrest or detention without any reasonable justifications is illegal.

D.K Bose V. State of West Bengal (1997)

As a result of this case, the Supreme Court provided new protections for anyone who finds themselves in police custody. It's a landmark case where the Supreme Court ruled that using physical force against someone in jail is a violation of their human dignity.

Conclusion

The numbers of deaths that occur in prisons are shocking. It is important to keep track of how often deaths occur while in police custody and to hold officers accountable for any misconduct that leads to a death in custody. It is important to keep track of how often deaths occur while in police custody and to hold officers accountable for any misconduct that leads to a death in custody.

When we studied custodial torture in class, I recalled that some students held the view that the truth could not be revealed without resorting to torture, while others held that such tactics were unacceptable even when employed by those entrusted with upholding the law. Whose side are you in?