Supreme Court Transfers Custodial Death Case to CBI, Emphasizes Witness Protection: Hansura Bai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 15, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 711

Judges: Vikram Nath J., Sandeep Mehta J.

When a person dies in police custody, who should investigate the matter to ensure justice? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in the case of Hansura Bai & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., concerning the custodial death of Deva Pardhi. The court considered the fairness and transparency of the investigation when allegations are against the local police. Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta presided over the case.

Case Background

On June 2, 2024, Bhagwan Singh reported a theft and house trespass at his residence to the Myana Police Station, leading to FIR No. 232 of 2024 under Sections 380 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant stated that gold and silver jewelry, along with cash, were stolen from his safe.

Hansura Bai and another appellant are the mother and aunt of Deva Pardhi, who was scheduled to marry Nikita Pardhi on July 14, 2024. According to the appellants, on the day of Deva’s Haldi ceremony, approximately 30-40 police personnel arrived at the wedding venue around 4:00 PM to 4:30 PM in 5-6 police cars and two motorcycles. Ten police officials allegedly entered Deva Pardhi’s house, overpowered and handcuffed him and his uncle, Gangaram Pardhi, and began assaulting them. The remaining police officers surrounded the house. Family members, including women and children, who tried to intervene were also allegedly manhandled.

Deva Pardhi and Gangaram Pardhi were forcibly taken to Jhagar Chowki and then allegedly to an old Thana without CCTV facilities, instead of the new Thana. The family members who visited the police station were not allowed to meet them. It is alleged that Deva Pardhi and Gangaram Pardhi were subjected to third-degree torture, including beatings, and having chilly powder, petrol, salt, and hot water applied to their bodies. Deva Pardhi was allegedly hung upside down and suffocated with water to force a confession to the theft reported by Bhagwan Singh. Gangaram Pardhi’s attempts to intervene were ignored.

After about three hours of torture, the rope holding Deva Pardhi was allegedly cut, causing him to fall. The torture continued until Deva Pardhi became unresponsive, after which he was taken to a hospital where he was declared dead.

Gangaram Pardhi was produced before a Magistrate on July 15, 2023, and was remanded to judicial custody in Guna district jail. Subsequently, Shri Rajendra Singh Chauhan, a police official involved in the detention of Deva and Gangaram Pardhi, filed FIR No. 247 of 2024 against Gangaram Pardhi’s family under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The post-mortem examination of Deva Pardhi’s body revealed multiple contusions and abrasions. The cause of death was initially reserved pending histopathological and biochemical analysis reports. The final opinion indicated that the cause of death was vasovagal shock leading to a heart attack.

A magisterial inquiry into Deva Pardhi’s death led to the registration of FIR No. 341 of 2024 at the Myana Police Station under Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), Section 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), and Section 3(5) (joint criminal liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against the Town Inspector of Myana Police Station and other police personnel. Later, Section 120 (voluntarily causing hurt to extort a confession) of the BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were added based on witness statements.

The investigation into the custodial death of Deva Pardhi remained unresolved, with no arrests made. Gangaram Pardhi, the sole witness, was implicated in multiple criminal cases, including FIR Nos. 247 of 2024, P.S. Dharnawada; 489 of 2023, P.S. Dharnawada; 434 of 2023, P .S. Jaora; and 87 of 2023, P .S. Chippabarod.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants, relatives of Gangaram Pardhi, filed Writ Petition No. 33416 of 2024 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, seeking the transfer of the investigation of FIR No. 341 of 2024 to another agency. They also filed an Interlocutory Application for bail to Gangaram Pardhi.

On December 20, 2024, the High Court denied the bail application but acknowledged the allegations of threats and coercion against Gangaram Pardhi by police and prison officials. The court ordered Gangaram Pardhi to be moved from Guna Jail to Central Jail, Gwalior.

Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The legal framework relevant to this case includes several sections from different statutes:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
  • Section 380: “Theft in dwelling house, etc. —Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
  • Section 457: “Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment.—Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may extend to fourteen years.”
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS):
  • Section 105: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
  • Section 115(2): Voluntarily causing hurt.
  • Section 3(5): Joint criminal liability.
  • Section 120: Voluntarily causing hurt to extort a confession.
  • Section 191(1), 191(2), 190, 109(1), 132, 121(1), 296, 221 and 324(4) (Details of these sections are not provided in the source).
• Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:
  • Section 3(2)(v): (Details of this section are not provided in the source).

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Hansura Bai & Anr.):

• Ms. Payoshi Roy, representing the appellants, argued that the local police officials were pressuring Gangaram Pardhi to give evidence in favor of the police officials involved in the custodial murder of Deva Pardhi.
• She contended that Gangaram Pardhi was being implicated in multiple criminal cases to prolong his custody and coerce him into exonerating the police officials by changing his version.
• She submitted that the investigation into the custodial death of Deva Pardhi should be transferred to the CBI, and Gangaram Pardhi should be granted bail due to false implication in multiple cases after the incident on July 13/14, 2024.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.):

• The counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by the appellants.
• Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, representing the State of Madhya Pradesh, submitted that two of the involved police officials had been shifted to the police lines.
• She argued that the State police were fairly investigating the custodial death of Deva Pardhi and that all errant police officials would be proceeded against as per law after the investigation was complete.
• She submitted that the apprehensions regarding the threat perception felt by Gangaram Pardhi had been alleviated by shifting him from Guna Jail to Gwalior Central Jail.
• It was submitted that Gangaram Pardhi is a hardened criminal wanted in multiple cases involving grave offenses, and therefore, the plea of innocence and false implication was without merit. Ms. Bhati argued that Gangaram Pardhi could seek bail from the concerned Courts and that there was no justification for the Supreme Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the investigation of FIR No. 341 of 2024 should be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
2. Whether bail should be granted to Gangaram Pardhi, considering his implication in multiple cases after the incident dated July 13th/14th, 2024.
3. Whether the State should provide protection to Gangaram Pardhi as a witness.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79 (Supreme Court of India)
  • Legal Point: Credibility of investigating agency and power to transfer investigations.
  • Ratio: An independent agency should conduct investigations when the investigating agency is privy to the dispute to maintain public trust.

The cases cited in Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat were:

• Mohd. Anis v. Union of India, [1994 Supp (1) SCC 145 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 251] (Supreme Court of India)
  • Legal Point: Fair and impartial investigation by an independent agency.
  • Ratio: Investigation by an agency involved in the controversy raises doubts on credibility and is contrary to public interest.
• R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P., [1994 Supp (1) SCC 143 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 248] (Supreme Court of India)
  • Legal Point: Entrusting investigation to an independent agency like CBI.
  • Ratio: When accusations are directed against local police personnel, it is desirable to entrust the investigation to an independent agency to lend credibility to the outcome.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to transfer the investigation to the CBI and provide protection to Gangaram Pardhi was influenced by several factors:

• Lack of Fair and Transparent Investigation: The Court found that the local police investigation was neither fair nor transparent, raising concerns about the integrity of the process.
• Threat to Witness: The Court acknowledged the serious threat to Gangaram Pardhi, the sole eyewitness, and the attempts to implicate him in multiple cases to prevent him from testifying.
• Influence on Medical Board: The Court noted the failure of the Medical Board to express an opinion on the cause of death, suggesting possible influence by the local police.
• Delay in Arrests: The Court highlighted the fact that no arrests had been made despite the registration of the FIR, indicating a lack of progress in the investigation.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle of ensuring a fair and impartial investigation, protecting the rights of the witness, and maintaining public trust in the judicial process.

The Supreme Court observed:

“We are, therefore, convinced that this is a classic case warranting invocation of the Latin maxim ‘nemo judex in causa sua’ which means that ‘no one should be a judge in his own cause’.”

“These circumstances give rise to a clear inference that the investigation by the local police is not being carried out in a fair and transparent manner and there is an imminent possibility of the prosecution being subjugated by the accused if the investigation is left in the hands of the State police, who are apparently shielding their own fellow policemen owing to the camaraderie.”

“Gangaram Pardhi is the sole eye-witness to the torture and custodial death of Deva Pardhi and hence, it is the duty of the State to provide him protection on the anvil of the witness protection scheme.”

Key Takeaways

• Impartial Investigation: When there are allegations against the local police, it is crucial to transfer the investigation to an independent agency like the CBI to ensure a fair and transparent process.
• Witness Protection: The state has a duty to provide protection to witnesses, especially in cases involving serious offenses like custodial death, to prevent them from being threatened or intimidated.
• Judicial Scrutiny: Courts must be vigilant in scrutinizing investigations, especially when there are doubts about their fairness and transparency, and take necessary steps to protect the rights of the accused and the victims.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The investigation of FIR No. 341 of 2024 was transferred to the CBI.
• The Superintendent of Police, CBI, was directed to register the RC and ensure a fair, transparent, and expeditious investigation.
• The police officials found responsible for the custodial death were to be arrested within one month.
• The investigation was to be concluded within 90 days from the date of arrest of the accused.
• Gangaram Pardhi was given the liberty to move the High Court for bail in all cases in which he had been implicated after the incident dated July 13th/14th, 2024.
• The Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Madhya Pradesh, and the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, were directed to provide safety and security to Gangaram Pardhi.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that when there are serious allegations against local police in cases of custodial death, the investigation should be transferred to an independent agency like the CBI to ensure fairness, transparency, and to maintain public trust in the judicial process. The case also reinforces the importance of witness protection, particularly when the witness is vulnerable to threats and intimidation.

Conclusion

In Hansura Bai & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., the Supreme Court addressed critical issues surrounding the custodial death of Deva Pardhi. By transferring the investigation to the CBI and emphasizing the protection of the sole eyewitness, Gangaram Pardhi, the Court underscored the importance of ensuring fair and impartial investigations, especially when allegations are directed against local police. The judgment reinforces the principles of justice, transparency, and the protection of fundamental rights within the criminal justice system.