A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Hansura Bai & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2647 of 2025) examines the principles of fair investigation in custodial death cases and the protection of key witnesses. The Court was confronted with the custodial death of a young man, Deva Pardhi, during illegal detention and brutal torture by local police officials. Despite clear evidence and a magisterial inquiry confirming custodial torture, no police official had been arrested for over eight months. Compounding the injustice, the sole eyewitness, Gangaram Pardhi—the victim’s uncle—was implicated in multiple criminal cases, evidently to silence him and prevent deposition. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh had refused to transfer investigation or grant him bail, though it acknowledged threat perceptions and shifted him to Gwalior Central Jail for security.

The Supreme Court invoked the maxim nemo judex in causa sua to hold that the local police could not fairly investigate their own misconduct. Relying upon precedents like Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat and R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P., the Court directed transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for ensuring credibility, transparency, and justice. It also emphasized the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, holding the State responsible for Gangaram Pardhi’s safety in and outside prison. Further, liberty was granted to him to directly move the High Court for bail in all false cases instituted post the custodial death incident.

The judgment reinforces the constitutional mandate of fair investigation under Article 21 and reflects judicial concern for protecting victims’ rights against State excesses. It sets significant guidelines on custodial death investigations, witness protection, and the judiciary’s supervisory role in cases where the State machinery itself is implicated.

Keywords: Custodial Death; Fair Investigation; Witness Protection; Transfer to CBI; Nemo Judex in Causa Sua; Article 21; Police Brutality; Bail; State Accountability; Human Rights.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case concerns one of the gravest violations of human rights within the Indian criminal justice system—custodial death. The victim, Deva Pardhi, a young man from a marginalized community, was taken into custody on the eve of his marriage under the pretext of a theft investigation. The circumstances of his death, involving extreme torture such as suspension by ropes, use of chilli powder, petrol, salt, and waterboarding techniques, epitomize custodial violence that undermines constitutional protections under Article 21. Despite multiple injuries documented in the post-mortem, the medical opinion curiously cited vasovagal shock leading to a heart attack, reflecting external influence upon medical professionals.

The central contention in this case was whether investigation into such custodial death could be entrusted to the very police force accused of perpetrating the crime. The principle of nemo judex in causa sua was invoked, recognizing that investigation by the local police lacked credibility as they were accused themselves. The High Court, while acknowledging the threats to the key eyewitness, refused transfer of investigation and bail, leaving the family without effective remedy.

The Supreme Court was thus called upon to safeguard the integrity of the criminal justice system by ensuring an impartial investigation, witness protection, and access to justice. The case is significant as it highlights systemic police impunity, misuse of prosecutorial powers to silence witnesses, and the judiciary’s duty to intervene to uphold fairness and transparency. It falls within a line of precedents where courts have transferred investigations to the CBI in order to maintain public confidence, including Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat (2011) 5 SCC 79 and R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P. (1994 Supp (1) SCC 143).

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The background traces to FIR No. 232 of 2024 registered on 3rd June 2024 regarding theft of jewellery and cash from one Bhagwan Singh’s house. During the wedding rituals of Deva Pardhi on 13th July 2024, around 30-40 police officials stormed the venue, forcibly handcuffed him and his uncle Gangaram Pardhi, and assaulted them in front of family members. They were taken to Jhagar Chowki, deliberately bypassing the police station with CCTV facilities. Witness accounts confirm that women family members were denied access.

Inside custody, both were subjected to inhuman torture—Deva was hung upside down, doused with water to simulate suffocation, and assaulted with chilli powder and hot water. He collapsed after three hours of torture, following which police belatedly took him to hospital where he was declared dead. Meanwhile, Gangaram was illegally detained for over 24 hours and produced before a Magistrate on 15th July, thereafter remanded to judicial custody.

Shockingly, instead of registering murder charges against the errant officials, FIR No. 247 of 2024 was lodged against the Pardhi family under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The post-mortem showed multiple contusions and abrasions but avoided assigning custodial torture as the cause of death. Only after a magisterial inquiry was FIR No. 341 of 2024 registered against police personnel, but crucial charges of murder were omitted.

Despite these developments, eight months elapsed without any arrests. Simultaneously, Gangaram, the sole eyewitness, was implicated in a series of unrelated criminal cases across different jurisdictions, effectively ensuring his prolonged incarceration. His family, represented by the appellants Hansura Bai and another, approached the High Court for transfer of investigation to an independent agency and grant of bail to Gangaram. The High Court, while recognizing threat perception, declined both reliefs. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the investigation into the custodial death of Deva Pardhi could remain with the local police despite their direct implication in the crime?
ii. Whether continued custody and false implication of Gangaram Pardhi, the sole eyewitness, violated principles of fair trial and required judicial intervention?
iii. Whether the doctrine of nemo judex in causa sua mandated transfer of investigation to an independent agency such as the CBI?
iv. Whether the State was constitutionally obligated to ensure safety and protection of the eyewitness under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018?
v. Whether denial of bail to the star witness amounted to miscarriage of justice in light of false cases registered against him?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants, led by Ms. Payoshi Roy, contended that the local police were directly complicit in the custodial murder of Deva Pardhi and therefore could not impartially investigate themselves. It was submitted that not a single officer had been arrested despite overwhelming evidence, thereby undermining public confidence in the rule of law. The failure to register an FIR under provisions of murder (Section 103 BNS) or Section 302 IPC equivalent was highlighted as deliberate shielding.

It was argued that Gangaram Pardhi, the star witness, had been systematically implicated in multiple false cases post-incident to silence him. This amounted to abuse of prosecutorial powers and violation of Article 21 guaranteeing a fair trial. Counsel invoked the precedent of Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat (2011) 5 SCC 79, where the Court held that investigations conducted by agencies themselves accused lack credibility and must be transferred to CBI.

Further reliance was placed on DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, wherein custodial torture was condemned as an affront to human dignity and life. The appellants asserted that denial of bail to Gangaram, despite his vulnerability as a prime witness, was unjustified and contrary to the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, which mandates State responsibility to safeguard witnesses from threats or harassment.

The petitioners thus prayed for immediate transfer of investigation to the CBI, arrest of the accused police officials, and grant of bail to Gangaram to prevent further miscarriage of justice.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The State, represented by the Additional Solicitor General Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, argued that the investigation was proceeding fairly and that certain officers had already been transferred to police lines. She emphasized that the State police were capable of handling the case and that premature intervention by the Supreme Court would undermine their authority. It was contended that the mere delay in arrests did not warrant transfer of investigation.

The State also highlighted that Gangaram Pardhi was a habitual offender wanted in multiple criminal cases, and thus his prolonged custody was justified. It was argued that the shifting of Gangaram from Guna Jail to Gwalior Central Jail as directed by the High Court sufficiently addressed concerns of threat perception. According to the State, his entitlement to bail must be adjudicated by the trial courts through regular legal processes rather than extraordinary relief from the Supreme Court under Article 136.

The State denied allegations of false implication and maintained that the prosecution was acting within legal bounds. It urged that transferring the investigation would send a negative signal and undermine institutional credibility of the State police.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 21, Constitution of India – Right to life and personal liberty, encompassing fair investigation.
ii. Article 136, Constitution of India – Supreme Court’s jurisdiction by special leave.
iii. Sections 105, 115(2), 120, 3(5) BNS, 2023 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, voluntarily causing hurt, extortion through torture, joint criminal liability.
iv. Section 3(2)(v), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Enhanced punishment for offences committed against members of SC/ST.
v. Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 – Court-recognized scheme ensuring safety of witnesses.
vi. Nemo judex in causa sua – Legal maxim ensuring impartial adjudication.
vii. ICCPR, 1966, Article 6 and 7 – International standards prohibiting arbitrary deprivation of life and torture.

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the local police could not fairly investigate custodial death in which they themselves were implicated. The Court noted the prolonged inaction, absence of arrests, suppression of FIR under murder, and external influence over medical opinion, all of which reflected a compromised investigation. Applying nemo judex in causa sua, it ordered immediate transfer of FIR No. 341 of 2024 to the CBI. The CBI was directed to register a case, arrest the responsible officials within one month, and complete investigation within ninety days.

On the issue of Gangaram Pardhi, the Court recognized deliberate attempts to implicate him in false cases to demoralize him as a witness. Liberty was granted to him to directly approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court for bail in all such cases, with a direction that his bail applications be considered expeditiously in light of the Court’s observations. Additionally, the State was directed to ensure his safety under the Witness Protection Scheme, both in prison and upon release.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio decidendi of this case lies in the principle that investigation of custodial death by the very police force accused undermines fairness and credibility, thereby necessitating transfer to an independent agency like the CBI. The Court underscored that public confidence in criminal justice requires investigations to be free from bias, citing Narmada Bai and R.S. Sodhi. It affirmed that when State machinery itself is under suspicion, judicial intervention becomes necessary to safeguard constitutional guarantees under Article 21.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that medical professionals’ reluctance to assign cause of death in the post-mortem appeared deliberate and influenced by police pressure. This obiter highlights systemic complicity extending beyond police to medical institutions. The Court also remarked that continuous harassment of key witnesses through false prosecutions amounts to subversion of justice, indicating the need for stronger implementation of witness protection schemes.

c. GUIDELINES

1. Investigations involving allegations against local police must be transferred to an independent agency where credibility is compromised.

2. Witness protection is the duty of the State and must be ensured both in custody and after release.

3. False implication of witnesses amounts to violation of fair trial rights and requires higher judicial scrutiny.

4. CBI or equivalent independent bodies must conclude such sensitive investigations within a time-bound framework to prevent delay tactics.

5. High Courts must consider bail applications of key witnesses in light of systemic harassment and threats, ensuring their ability to depose freely.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment stands as a powerful reaffirmation of judicial oversight over custodial deaths, a domain where State impunity often prevails. By invoking nemo judex in causa sua, the Court reinforced that no institution can be the judge of its own wrongs. The transfer of investigation to the CBI was essential not only for justice to the Pardhi family but also for maintaining faith in constitutional governance.

The Court’s recognition of systemic attempts to implicate and silence Gangaram Pardhi highlights the intersection of custodial violence with structural discrimination against marginalized communities. It illustrates how legal processes themselves can be weaponized to obstruct justice. The directive to apply the Witness Protection Scheme reflects sensitivity towards safeguarding individuals who risk their lives by testifying against powerful State actors.

Importantly, the Court imposed a strict timeline on the CBI, reflecting judicial concern over delay as a tactic to weaken prosecution. The judgment harmonizes domestic constitutional principles with international obligations under the ICCPR prohibiting torture and arbitrary deprivation of life.

Overall, the case is a milestone in strengthening accountability in custodial deaths, mandating fair investigation, and ensuring witness protection. It resonates with prior jurisprudence but also sets forward-looking guidelines to insulate justice from police bias and institutional camaraderie.

K) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

i. Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79.
ii. R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 143.
iii. Mohd. Anis v. Union of India, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 145.
iv. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416.

Important Statutes Referred

i. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 105, 115(2), 120, 3(5).
ii. SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(2)(v).
iii. Constitution of India – Articles 21, 136.
iv. Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.
v. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966 – Articles 6, 7.