Supreme Court of India
HANSURA BAI & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 711
- Decided
- 14 May 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
Because the local police were implicated in the custodial death, the investigation was tainted and therefore must be transferred to the CBI, and the sole eyewitness should be permitted to seek bail and be afforded protection.
Summary
The appellants, mother and aunt of Deva Pardhi, challenged a High Court order that refused to transfer the investigation of Deva's custodial death to another agency and denied bail to the sole eyewitness, Gangaram Pardhi. Deva was allegedly tortured and killed by local police officers, and Gangaram, who witnessed the torture, was subsequently implicated in multiple criminal cases, raising concerns of intimidation. The Supreme Court examined whether the local police, being alleged perpetrators, could fairly investigate the case and whether the principle of nemo judex in causa sua applied. Relying on precedent that investigations by agencies with a conflict of interest lack credibility, the Court ordered the investigation to be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation and directed that the witness be allowed to seek bail and be protected under the witness protection scheme. The Court also set timelines for arrests and completion of the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether the investigation into the custodial death of Deva Pardhi should be transferred from the local police to an independent agency such as the CBI
- Whether the principle of nemo judex in causa sua applies to the local police investigation
- Whether the sole eyewitness, Gangaram Pardhi, is entitled to bail and state protection under the witness protection scheme
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023s. 105, s. 109(1), s. 115(2), s. 120, s. 121(1), s. 132, s. 190, s. 191(1), s. 191(2), s. 221, s. 296, s. 324(4), s. 3(2)(v), s. 3(5)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 380, s. 457
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989s. 3(2)(v)
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the Single Judge erred in rejecting the prayers made by the appellants (victim’s family) for transferring the investigation into the custodial death of the victim, to some other investigating agency; and to direct the release of sole eye-witness on bail. Headnotes† Custodial death – Transfer of investigation – When to be allowed – ‘nemo judex in causa sua’: Held: The incident involved the death of a young man in police custody by the local police officials, where though an FIR was registered, but
Subjects
Custodial deathTransfer of investigation to CBISole eyewitnessWitness Protection SchemeNemo judex in causa suaPolice misconductBailPublic interest
Judgment
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 280 : 2025 INSC 711
Hansura Bai & Anr.
v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2647 of 2025)
15 May 2025
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Single Judge erred in rejecting the prayers made by
the appellants (victim’s family) for transferring the investigation
into the custodial death of the victim, to some other investigating
agency; and to direct the release of sole eye-witness (victim’s
uncle) to the custodial torture, on bail.
Headnotes†
Custodial death – Transfer of investigation – When to be
allowed – ‘nemo judex in causa sua’:
Held: The incident involved the death of a young man in police
custody by the local police officials, where though an FIR was
registered, but till date even after lapse of eight months, not
one of the police official has been arrested – Involvement of the
police officials in the custodial death of the victim is clear from the
statement of the sole eye-witness (victim’s uncle) to the custodial
torture and is further corroborated during the magisterial inquiry –
Local police officials prevented the victims’ family that tried to
lodge the FIR immediately after the incident – It was only after
the magisterial inquiry was conducted that the FIR was registered
wherein the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder
was omitted – On facts, the investigation by the local police is not
being carried out in a fair and transparent manner – Victim’s uncle
expressed serious threat perception at the hands of police and
prison officials which was accepted by High Court – Present is a
classic case of ‘nemo judex in causa sua’ meaning that ‘no one
should be a judge in his own cause’ – Investigation transferred to
CBI. [Paras 26-31]
* Author
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 281
Hansura Bai & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Witness Protection Scheme – Victim’s uncle was sole eye-
witness to the torture and custodial death of the victim – Duty
of the State to provide him safety and security:
Held: On facts, an attempt was made to somehow implicate the
victim’s uncle, the star witness of the custodial death, in multiple
cases to demoralize him and prevent him from deposing against
the errant police officials – Liberty granted to him to directly move
the High Court for bail in all the cases where he was implicated
after the incident of 13th/14th July, 2024 where he alongwith the
victim were forcibly taken away by the police in relation to a theft
case – Further, it is the duty of the State to provide him protection
either in prison or after being released on bail, direction issued.
[Para 36]
Criminal Law – Transfer of investigation – Power to transfer
investigation – Exercise of – Discussed. [Para 12]
Case Law Cited
Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat [2011] 5 SCR 729 : (2011) 5
SCC 79 – referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Custodial death; Death of a young man in police custody; Transfer
of investigation to CBI; Sole eye-witness to the torture and custodial
death; Victim’s uncle; Involvement of the police officials in the
custodial death; Local police officials; Investigation by the local
police not fair and transparent; Autopsy of the dead body; Doctors
pressurised/influenced; Errant police officials; ‘nemo judex in causa
sua’; ‘no one should be a judge in his own cause’; Investigation
transferred to CBI; Witness Protection Scheme.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2647 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2024 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in IA No. 12328 of 2024
282 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Ms. Payoshi Roy, Siddhartha, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,
Ms. Nikita Sonavane, Sagar Soni, Ms. Maheshwari Mawase,
Ms. Madhvi Gomathieswaran, Bharathimohan M., Avinash Kumar,
Ms. V. Swetha, Vairawan A.S.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Nachiketa Joshi, A.A.G., Ms. Radhika,
Yashraj Singh Bundela, Abhinav Shrivastava, Ms. Saloni, Arpit
Garg, Dhruv Sharma, Shikhar Goel, Pranav Sachdeva, Shivam
Gaur, Nitin Sharma.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellants herein have approached this Court, through this
appeal by special leave, assailing the judgment dated 20th December,
2024, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior1 in
Writ Petition No. 33416 of 2024, whereby the learned Single Judge
turned down the prayer made by the appellants for transferring the
investigation into the custodial death of Deva Pardhi to some other
investigating agency; and to direct the release of sole eye-witness
to the custodial torture, namely, Gangaram Pardhi on bail.
4. Facts as emerging from the record reveal that one Bhagwan Singh,
resident of Village Bhidra, lodged an FIR No. 232 of 2024 at Myana
Police Station against unknown persons for theft and house trespass
by night punishable under Sections 380 and 457 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.2 As per the complainant, substantial articles of silver and
gold jewellery and cash were stolen from the safe of his house on
1 Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘High Court’.
2 For short, ‘IPC’.
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 283
Hansura Bai & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
2nd June, 2024. The FIR of the said incident came to be registered
on 3rd June, 2024.
5. The appellants are mother and aunt respectively of Deva Pardhi,
whose marriage was scheduled to be solemnised on 14th July, 2024
with one Nikita Pardhi. It is the case of the appellants that while the
Haldi ritual was going on, about 30-40 police personnel entered
the wedding venue in 5-6 police cars and two motorcycles. The
time was around 04:00 P.M. to 04:30 P.M., when 10 police officials
entered into Deva Pardhi’s house and immediately overpowered
and handcuffed him along with his uncle, Gangaram Pardhi, the
husband of appellant No. 2, and started assaulting both of them.
The remaining members of the police team surrounded the house.
When the family members, including women and children, tried to
resist/oppose the high-handed acts of the errant police officials, they
too were manhandled and beaten up. Deva Pardhi and Gangaram
Pardhi were dragged by the police officials and were forcibly taken
away in the police van to the Jhagar Chowki. The family members
were told that they would be taken to Myana Police Station for inquiry
in the aforesaid theft case. The police officials further assured that
both Deva Pardhi and Gangaram Pardhi would be safely brought
back by the next morning. It is alleged that the police officials took
Deva Pardhi and Gangaram Pardhi to the old Thana instead of the
new Thana premises which has CCTV facilities. Women folk from
both the households visited the police station, but they were not
allowed to meet and speak to Deva Pardhi and Gangaram Pardhi.
6. Both Deva Pardhi and Gangaram Pardhi were threatened and
were subjected to intense third-degree treatment including beating
by ropes, putting chilly powder, petrol, salt and hot water on their
bodies. Deva Pardhi was strung up by ropes and was hung upside
down from the roof. His face was covered with a black cloth which
was tied to his ankle using a string. He was repeatedly doused with
water in an attempt to suffocate him. By putting Deva Pardhi in
fear of death, the police officials pressurized him to confess to the
commission of theft as reported by Bhagwan Singh. Gangaram Pardhi
tried to intervene saying that they did not have any idea about the
so-called theft. Deva Pardhi was tortured in this manner for about
three hours whereafter the rope was cut. Resultantly, Deva Pardhi
fell from the roof onto the floor. Still, the police officials did not relent
284 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and continued to torture him. Hot water was thrown and salt was
put on the wounds of Deva Pardhi who stopped responding to the
torture stimuli upon which, the police officers pinched him. As no
response was seen, the police officers took Deva Pardhi to another
room. Later, an ambulance was called, and the police officials took
Deva Pardhi to the hospital where he was declared dead.
7. Gangaram Pardhi was produced before the Magistrate on 15th July,
2023, after being illegally detained for more than 24 hours by the
police officials. He was remanded to judicial custody and was sent
to Guna district jail.
8. To the utter dismay and shock of the family members of Gangaram
Pardhi, they found that Shri Rajendra Singh Chauhan, one of the
police officials who was a part of the team which had forcibly taken
away and detained Deva Pardhi and Gangaram Pardhi, lodged an
FIR No. 247 of 2024 under Sections 191(1), 191(2), 190, 109(1),
132, 121(1), 296, 221 and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023,3 against the whole family of Gangaram Pardhi.
9. Post-mortem was conducted on the body of Deva Pardhi and
the Doctors conducting the autopsy reported multiple contusions,
abrasions, etc., over the body of the deceased. The cause of death
was reserved for receiving the histopathological and bio-chemical
analysis reports. This Court is apprised that subsequently an opinion
was given by the Doctors that the cause of death of Deva Pardhi
was vasovagal shock leading to heart attack.
10. Magisterial Enquiry was conducted into the death of Deva Pardhi and
on conclusion thereof, FIR No. 341 of 2024 came to be registered at
the Police Station Myana for the offence punishable under Section
105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), Section 115(2)
(voluntarily causing hurt) and Section 3(5) (joint criminal liability) of
the BNS against the Town Inspector of Myana Police Station along
with seven to eight other police personnel.
11. Based on the statements of the witnesses examined during the
investigation, offences punishable under 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 to the case.
3 For short, ‘BNS’.
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 285
Hansura Bai & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
12. The investigation assigned to the local police in the FIR pertaining to
the custodial death of Deva Pardhi is still stuck up without a single
accused being arrested. In the meantime, the sole witness to the
grave incident of custodial death namely, Gangaram Pardhi, who
had been remanded to the judicial custody, has been implicated in
criminal cases, viz, 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, etc.
13. The appellants herein, being the relatives of Gangaram Pardhi,
preferred Writ Petition No. 33416 of 2024 before the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior seeking transfer of investigation of FIR
No. 341 of 2024 to some other agency, along with an Interlocutory
Application for grant of bail to Gangaram Pardhi.
14. The High Court, vide order dated 20th December, 2024, passed in I.A.
No. 12328, denied the prayer for bail made on behalf of Gangaram
Pardhi. However, at the same time, the High Court accepted the
allegations of threats, coercion and duress being faced by Gangaram
Pardhi at the hands of police and prison officials who were having
access to the District Jail, Guna, and directed that Gangaram Pardhi
be shifted to Central Jail, Gwalior.
15. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal
by special leave.
16. Ms. Payoshi Roy, learned counsel representing the appellants,
vehemently and fervently urged that the entire endeavour of local
police officials is to pressurize and coerce Gangaram Pardhi to give
evidence in favour of the police officials who indulged in the brutal
custodial murder of Deva Pardhi.
17. She further contended that Gangaram Pardhi is being entangled
in multiple criminal cases, one after the other, so as to prolong his
custody period and to subdue him into exonerating the police officials
by changing his version.
18. She thus submitted that it is a fit case warranting transfer of
investigation into the custodial death of Deva Pardhi to the CBI and
to further direct grant of bail to Gangaram Pardhi, who has been
entangled in the multiple false cases after the incident dated 13th/14th
July, 2024.
286 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
19. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants.
20. Learned Additional Solicitor General Ms. Aishwarya Bhati representing
the State of Madhya Pradesh, submitted that two of the involved
police officials have been shifted to the police lines. However, she
did not dispute that other than transfer of the errant police officials,
no realistic or firm measures whatsoever have been taken to bring
the offenders to book. Nevertheless, she urged that the State police
is fairly investigating the matter pertaining to custodial death of Deva
Pardhi and all the errant police officials will be proceeded against
as per law after investigation is complete.
21. It was further submitted that the apprehensions being expressed
regarding the threat perception being felt by Gangaram Pardhi, have
been alleviated pursuant to the High Court order shifting him from
Guna Jail to Gwalior Central Jail and thus, now there is no cause
of concern in this regard.
22. It was submitted that Gangaram Pardhi is a hardened criminal who
is wanted in multiple cases involving grave offences and hence, the
plea of innocence and false implication raised by the appellants is
devoid of any merit. Ms. Bhati urged that Gangaram Pardhi can avail
the remedy of seeking bail from the Courts concerned and therefore,
there is no justification warranting exercise of the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India
so as to grant relief in this case.
23. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at the bar and perused the material available on record.
24. The grievance of the writ petitioners in the writ petition was that
the local police is adjudging its own cause, which is causing grave
prejudice to the appellants.
25. It is settled a position of law that credibility of investigating agency
should be impeachable. Further, the power to transfer investigations
to a certain investigating agency must be sparingly used in the
interest of justice and to maintain public trust on the institution. If
the investigating agency is privy to the dispute, it may raise doubts
on the credibility of investigation and thus, make out a ground to
transfer the investigation. In this regard, gainful reference may be
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 287
Hansura Bai & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
made to the decision of this Court in Narmada Bai v. State of
Gujarat,4 wherein it was held as follows:
“61. In Mohd. Anis v. Union of India [1994 Supp (1)
SCC 145 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 251] it has been observed by
this Court that:
“5. … Fair and impartial investigation by
an independent agency, not involved in the
controversy, is the demand of public interest. If
the investigation is by an agency which is
allegedly privy to the dispute, the credibility
of the investigation will be doubted and that
will be contrary to the public interest as well
as the interest of justice.” (SCC p. 148, para 5)
“2. … Doubts were expressed regarding the
fairness of the investigation as it was feared that
as the local police was alleged to be involved in
the encounters, the investigation by an officer
of the U.P. Cadre may not be impartial.” (SCC
p. 147, para 2)
62. In another decision of this Court in R.S. Sodhi v. State
of U.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC 143 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 248] the
following conclusion is relevant : (SCC pp. 144-45, para 2)
“2. … We have perused the events that have
taken place since the incidents but we are
refraining from entering upon the details thereof
lest it may prejudice any party but we think that
since the accusations are directed against the
local police personnel it would be desirable
to entrust the investigation to an independent
agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation
so that all concerned including the relatives of the
deceased may feel assured that an independent
agency is looking into the matter and that would
lend the final outcome of the investigation
4 (2011) 5 SCC 79.
288 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
credibility. However faithfully the local police
may carry out the investigation, the same
will lack credibility since the allegations are
against them. It is only with that in mind that
we having thought it both advisable and
desirable as well as in the interest of justice
to entrust the investigation to the Central
Bureau of Investigation forthwith and we do
hope that it would complete the investigation
at an early date so that those involved in the
occurrences, one way or the other, may be
brought to book. We direct accordingly.”
63. In both these decisions, this Court refrained from
expressing any opinion on the allegations made by either
side but thought it wise to have the incident investigated
by an independent agency like CBI so that it may
bear credibility. This Court felt that no matter how
faithfully and honestly the local police may carry out
the investigation, the same will lack credibility as
allegations were directed against them. This Court,
therefore, thought it both desirable and advisable and
in the interest of justice to entrust the investigation
to CBI so that it may complete the investigation at an
early date. It was clearly stated that in so ordering, no
reflection either on the local police or the State Government
was intended. This Court merely acted in public interest.”
(Emphasis supplied)
26. It is not in dispute that for the incident involving the death of Deva
Pardhi in police custody, an FIR No. 341 of 2024 has been registered,
but till date, not one of the police official responsible for the death
of a young man in custody has been arrested.
27. It is also not disputed that Gangaram Pardhi, the sole witness to the
custodial death of Deva Pardhi, expressed serious threat perception
at the hands of police and prison officials. The High Court accepted
the genuineness of the threat perception and directed the transfer
of Gangaram Pardhi from Guna Jail to the Central Jail, Gwalior.
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 289
Hansura Bai & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
28. 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’. The
allegation of causing custodial death of Deva Pardhi is against the
local police officials of Myana Police Station. The fact that the police
officials have influenced the investigation right from the beginning is
amply borne out from the circumstance that even the doctors, who
conducted autopsy of the dead body of Deva Pardhi, seem to have
been pressurised/influenced.
29. We are constrained to observe that despite taking note of the large
number of the injuries on the body of Deva Pardhi, the victim of
custodial torture, the members of the Medical Board which conducted
post-mortem on his body, failed to express any opinion regarding
the cause of his death. This omission seems to be deliberate rather
unintentional and appears to be a direct result of influence being
exercised by the local police officials. The involvement of the police
officials in the custodial death of Deva Pardhi is clearly borne out
from the statement of the sole eye-witness Gangaram Pardhi and
stands further corroborated during the magisterial inquiry. The
victims’ family tried to lodge the FIR immediately after the incident,
but the local police officials prevented them from doing so. It is only
after the magisterial inquiry was conducted that the FIR came to be
registered wherein the offence of culpable homicide amounting to
murder was omitted. Nearly eight months have passed since the FIR
was registered but till date, not a single accused has been arrested.
30. 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.
31. Therefore, we deem it fit and essential to direct that the investigation
of FIR No. 341 of 2024 shall forthwith be transferred to the Central
Bureau of Investigation.5
32. The jurisdictional Superintendent of Police, CBI shall forthwith direct
registration of the RC and will ensure fair, transparent and expeditious
investigation into the custodial death of Deva Pardhi. The police
5 For short, “CBI”.
290 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
officials found responsible for the custodial death shall be arrested
forthwith and not later than a period of one month from today. The
investigation shall be concluded within a period of 90 days from the
date of the arrest of the accused.
33. So far as the aspect of grant of bail to Gangaram Pardhi is concerned,
we may observe that the underlying facts narrated supra clearly
indicate that a deliberate attempt is being made to somehow or
the other, implicate Gangaram Pardhi in multiple cases, one after
the other, so as to keep him behind bars indefinitely, and break his
spirit and the spirit of his family members thereby ensuring that the
said person being the star witness of the custodial death of Deva
Pardhi is not only demoralized but is also prevented from deposing
against the errant police officials. The apprehension of threat to life
expressed on behalf of Gangaram Pardhi has been duly accepted by
the High Court who directed shifting him to the Central Jail, Gwalior.
34. In this background, we hereby give liberty to Gangaram Pardhi to
directly move the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior for grant
of bail in all the cases in which he has been implicated after the
incident dated 13th/14th July, 2024. The High Court, while considering
the application/s for grant of bail, shall keep in mind the observations
made above and is requested to decide the prayer for bail, if any,
expeditiously made on behalf of Gangaram Pardhi.
35. 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.
36. We, therefore, direct that the responsibility to provide safety and
security to Gangaram Pardhi, either in prison or after being released
on bail, shall be that of the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of
Madhya Pradesh and the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh.
37. The appeal is disposed of in these terms accordingly.
38. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Custodial death"Sign in to search