Case Commentary: Hansura Bai & ANR v. State of Madhya Pradesh & ANR [2025]

SLP (Crl) NO. 3450 of 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 711

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta

Date of Judgment: May 15, 2025

Introduction-

The case of Hansura Bai & Anr v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr (2025 INSC 711) is a reminder of the well-established problem of custodial violence in India and the failures in the law enforcement machinery to protect basic rights. The Supreme Court, in this case, was concerned with a grievous instance of custodial torture and death of a youth, Deva Pardhi, by police officials. This case examines the role of the judiciary in upholding justice when the machinery of the state itself is involved in the crime. This case comment examines the judicial rationale, the factual scenario, and legal questions, the contentions of the parties, and the implications of the decision for future jurisprudence and society.

Facts-

• The appellants, Hansura Bai and another, have come to the Supreme Court after the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed their petition for the transfer of investigation into the custodial death of Deva Pardhi.
• On 2^nd June 2024, Bhagwan Singh lodged an FIR for theft under Sections 380 and 457 of the IPC. On 13^th July 2024, during Deva Pardhi’s Haldi ceremony, about 30-40 police officials forcibly entered his house, assaulted him and his uncle Gangaram Pardhi, and detained them without proper legal sanction.
• They were brought to an elderly police station building without CCTV monitoring. What followed was atrocious: Deva was tortured with third-degree torture involving hanging upside down, beating, and suffocation, purportedly to extract a confession. Refusing to confess, the police tortured him further despite being severely injured. He eventually lost consciousness. He was pronounced dead in a hospital later.
• Gangaram Pardhi, the only eyewitness, was illegally detained for more than 24 hours and subsequently implicated in various criminal charges, popularly suspected to be an effort at silencing or intimidating him. The post-mortem revealed multiple injuries, but the death was caused by vasovagal shock. A magisterial enquiry has started, and an FIR under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was registered, but no police officer was arrested even after several months.
• The petitioners sought the intervention of the Supreme Court for two key reliefs:

Transferring the investigation to an independent agency and,

Releasing Gangaram on bail.

Issues Raised-

• Whether the local police could be relied upon to conduct a fair and impartial investigation into the custodial death of Deva Pardhi, given that the accused were part of the same force?
• Whether Gangaram Pardhi, the sole eyewitness and also a kinsman of the deceased, was maliciously prosecuted with the object of hiding the truth and tampering the evidence?
• Whether investigation was properly transferable to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the interest of justice?
• Whether denial of bail to Gangaram Pardhi was unconstitutional to his fundamental rights, particularly in the wake of threats and vengeance?

Contentions of the Parties-

Appellant’s Contentions-

• The appellants, through Ms. Payoshi Roy, submitted that the entire probe was tainted since it involved the same cops who were implicated for custodial torture.
• They submitted that police officials interfered even in the post-mortem process, resulting in a sanitized report that did not reveal the real cause of death despite apparent injuries.
• The prolonged detention and involvement of Gangaram Pardhi in various FIRs were presented as a systematic strategy to prevent him from appearing as a witness and to sabotage the case of prosecution.
• The appellants sought that the investigation be conducted by the CBI and that Gangaram be released on bail immediately in order to preserve his safety and allow him to give evidence.

Respondent’s Contentions-

• The State of Madhya Pradesh, through ASG Aishwarya Bhati, asserted that an FIR had been filed and two of the police officers involved were shifted to police lines.
• It was urged that the investigation was going on as per the law, and there was no bias in believing that it was non-credible.
• In the case of Gangaram Pardhi, the State highlighted his reported criminal history and the series of FIRs against him to resist bail.
• The State had argued that the threat to Gnagaram had been appropriately met by shifting him from Guna Jail to Central Jail, Gwalior.

Rationale of the Court-

The Supreme Court, through Justice Mehta, made severe reservations regarding the credibility of the probe carried out by the local police. Drawing on precedents like “Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat” ([1]Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79, 2011), the court reaffirmed that investigations done by the persons accused in the case themselves, or their colleagues, inherently erode public trust.

• The principle “nemo judex in causa sua” (which means “no one shall be a judge in their own cause” was referred to. As the identical police force charged with perpetrating the crime was probing the case, the court held that the setup could not guarantee impartiality.
• The inability to arrest any of the suspended police officers despite eight months, in addition to the lack of murder charges in the FIR, indicated institutional prejudice.
• The delay by the medical board in determining the cause of death and the subsequent blaming on “vasovagal shock” despite evident injuries was considered likely to be a result of pressure from the police.
• Gangaram Pardhi was recognized as the only eyewitness. The repeated attempts to involve him in fabricated criminal cases were regarded as an effort to demoralize and destroy his credibility as a witness.
• The Court reminded the State of its responsibility under the Witness Protection Scheme ([2]Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 (Approved in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India, (2019) 14 SCC 615)) and ordered the Principal Secretary (Home) and DGP, Madhya Pradesh, to protect Gangaram Pardhi.

Defects of the Law-

• Even with several Supreme Court rulings stressing safeguards against custodial deaths and torture as given in the case of “DK Basu v. State of West Bengal” ([3] DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416, 1997), the lack of firm implementation mechanisms still allows for such occurrences.
• The existing legal system permits investigating police departments to probe themselves, a conduct that is biased and runs counter to natural justice principles.
• Forensic and medical procedures are susceptible to police interference, as indicated by the post-mortem report’s ambiguous cause of death.
• Transferring guilty officers to police lines instead of suspending or arresting them is an indicator of an institutional culture of impunity.
• An FIR flood to silence a vital eyewitness shows how procedural weapons may be misused to defeat justice.

Inference-

The facts and actions of the authorities prove a concerted effort to protect the culpable police officers. The inability of the State to effect arrests, charge the accused appropriately, or offer protection to witnesses proves the extent of institutional decay. The role of the judiciary in this case becomes critical not just for the personal rights of the victim’s family and the witness, but to reaffirm constitutional protections in custodial violence cases.

Conclusion-

The Supreme Court judgment in this case is a resounding endorsement of the essence of independent investigation of cases of custodial deaths. The Court’s order directing the investigation to be taken over by the CBI, over and above the opposition of the State, indicates a larger move in the judicial approach towards strengthening accountability in custodial settings. Judicial courts will probably look at custodial death cases with greater skepticism, particularly where the local police themselves are suspected. Focusing on safeguarding Gangaram through the Witness Protection Scheme may fortify its invocation in other vulnerable witness cases. The verdict assures citizens that the judiciary can serve as a shield against state misuse of power. The torture inflicted on Deva Pardhi can give an inducement to renewed calls for passage of laws specifically dealing with custodial torture, like the long-delayed Prevention of Torture Bill.

[1]Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79 (Supreme Court of India 2011).

[2]Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 (Approved in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India, (2019) 14 SCC 615).

[3] DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 (Supreme Court of India 1997).