Fourteen Injuries and a Diary Entry Written After Death: Custodial Death and the Limits of NHRC Remedies
At 21:40 on 3 March 2025, police at a district police station detained Arif, 27, for allegedly stealing a motorcycle. No arrest memo was prepared, his family was not informed, and he was not medically examined. At 04:15 the next morning he was found unconscious in the lock-up; he was declared dead at the district hospital at 05:05. The post-mortem, conducted by a board of two doctors, records 14 external injuries including bruising over the back and buttocks, fractures of the sixth and seventh ribs, and a ruptured spleen. The station diary contains an entry at 06:30 - after the death - stating that he 'fell while attempting to escape'. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate is asked to 'verify the facts', but no magisterial inquiry is ordered. An FIR is registered four days later under Section 304 IPC against 'unknown constables'. A newspaper reports the death; the Commission takes suo motu cognizance and seeks a report from the Director General of Police within four weeks.
1. Identify the specific legal and human rights violations disclosed by these facts, citing the governing provisions and the safeguards that were ignored.
Read the worked answer
Framework. A death in police custody engages Article 21 (life and personal liberty, read with dignity) and Article 22(1)-(2). Internationally, Article 9 of the ICCPR (liberty, security and humane treatment) and Article 10 are relevant. India has signed but not ratified the Convention against Torture, so the operative standards are constitutional and statutory.
Violations disclosed.
- Arrest safeguards (D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416): no arrest memo attested by a witness and countersigned by the arrestee; family not informed; no medical examination on arrest; no contemporaneous entry in the station diary.
- Custody safeguards: no more restraint than necessary; duty to take reasonable care of the health and safety of an arrested person; production before a Magistrate within 24 hours was never reached because death intervened.
- Investigation: Section 176(1A) CrPC (now Section 196 BNSS, 2023) makes a magisterial inquiry mandatory for a death in police custody. A Sub-Divisional Magistrate's 'verification' is not that inquiry; a Judicial Magistrate must hold it.
- Records: the 06:30 diary entry, created after death, is itself evidence of fabrication and triggers the rule that the custodial authority must explain the injuries (State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi, (1995) 4 SCC 262).
Reasoning point. Fourteen injuries and a ruptured spleen are not consistent with a single fall. The burden of explanation lies on the State, not on the deceased's family. An FIR against 'unknown constables' four days later is inadequate; the officers on duty must be named, and the investigation should be transferred out of the district.
Conclusion. Multiple violations of Article 21 and statutory safeguards, requiring a Section 176(1A) inquiry, an independent investigation, and preservation of CCTV footage and duty rosters.
2. What powers does the Commission actually have here, what can it lawfully not do, and what recommendations should it make?
Read the worked answer
Powers. Section 13 confers civil-court powers - summoning witnesses, discovery, receiving evidence on affidavits and requisitioning public records. Section 14 allows investigation through its own investigation division, and Section 17 governs inquiry into complaints.
What it may recommend under Section 18. Payment of compensation or damages to the family; initiation of proceedings for prosecution or departmental action against the erring officials; immediate interim relief; approaching the Supreme Court or a High Court; and forwarding its report to the State Government, which must inform the Commission of the action taken within one month.
What it cannot do. It cannot punish anyone, cannot award compensation enforceable as a decree, cannot itself prosecute, and its recommendations are not binding. It is not a substitute for the magisterial inquiry or the criminal trial. Examiners test precisely this gap between recommendation and enforcement.
Draft recommendations.
- Immediate interim relief and ex gratia to the family, without prejudice to the criminal case.
- A Section 176(1A) inquiry by a Judicial Magistrate, report within 60 days.
- Independent investigation by the CB-CID or a neighbouring district police unit, with named accused and suspension of the Station House Officer and the constables on duty.
- Departmental proceedings for fabrication of the station diary.
- District-wide compliance with D.K. Basu safeguards and CCTV coverage of all lock-ups with a monitored feed (Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, (2020) 5 SCC 481).
- A time-bound compliance report from the Director General of Police.
Reasoning. The Commission's institutional value lies in speed, fact-finding and recommendation, not adjudication; its recommendations must therefore be specific, time-bound and addressed to an authority that can actually act.
3. Which compensation principles apply, and how should the quantum be reasoned rather than merely asserted?
Read the worked answer
Principle. Compensation for custodial death is a public-law remedy under Articles 32 and 226, not a civil suit. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 held the State strictly liable for the acts of its officials and confirmed compensation as a remedy available in public law; Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141 is the earlier illustration. D.K. Basu added that compensation must accompany disciplinary and criminal accountability, not replace it. Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, (2006) 3 SCC 178 cautions that compensation is appropriate where the violation is flagrant and the facts are clear, not where they are disputed and need a trial.
Application. The violation here is flagrant: 14 injuries, rib fractures, a ruptured spleen and a post-death diary entry purporting to explain them. The family's dependents must be verified, but a widow and young children are indicated. Compensation should therefore be recommended, expressly without prejudice to the criminal trial.
Quantum reasoning. There is no statutory tariff. Relevant factors are the deceased's age (27), his earning capacity and the evidence of it, the number of dependents, loss of consortium, the nature and duration of suffering, and the State's own policy on ex gratia in custodial deaths. Because the Commission can only recommend, the defensible formulation is a reasoned figure consistent with that policy, with liberty to the family to seek enhanced compensation under Article 226.
Exam point. Compensation is not tortious damages and does not require proof of malice, but it is also not automatic: flagrancy and clarity of facts determine whether the public-law route is appropriate at all.