Even Ordinary Murderer Wouldn’t Have Caused Such Injuries: Madras High Court Orders Judicial Enquiry Into Alleged Custodial Death Of Temple Guard
The Madras High Court was of the view that the material evidences are unsafe in the hands of the local police, who are all directly or indirectly interested parties to the custodial death.
Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice A.D. Maria Clete, Madras High Court, Madurai Bench
The Madras High Court has ordered judicial enquiry into the alleged custodial death of a 29-year-old man, who was working as a watchman in a local temple.
A batch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were preferred before the Madurai Bench by the people residing in the village, Advocate, etc.
A Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice A.D. Maria Clete observed, “A plain reading of the nature of the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased would reveal that he was brutally attacked all over the body and died. Even an ordinary murderer would not have caused this much of injuries to a person is the view of this Court. He is not even an accused as on 27.06.2025 and no First Information Report for theft was registered. Importantly, there is no previous criminal case against the deceased person and he had no bad antecedent and he was working as a Watchman in the local temple. Therefore, the local people know about him and his character. The father of the deceased died in the year 2004 and the mother brought up her two children and the deceased is the eldest son.”
The Bench was of the view that the material evidences are unsafe in the hands of the local police, who are all directly or indirectly interested parties to the custodial death.
Advocates Henri Patrick Tiphange, R.M. Arun Swaminathan, R. Ramasamy, and R. Alagumani represented the Petitioners while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Ajmal Khan represented the Respondents.
Case Background
On June 27 this year, a woman and her daughter went to Madappuram Badrakali Amman Temple at Madappuram situated at 20 kms away from Madurai City. They approached the temple guard i.e., the deceased to provide a wheelchair. They further requested him to properly park their vehicle with the assistance of some driver. He acceded to their request and on their return, they found that approximately 9 soverigns of gold jewels kept inside the car was missing. They filed a complaint to the Police Station during evening hours and the Inspector of Police immediately contacted the Executive Officer/Assistant Commissioner of the temple, who in turn directed the deceased and one plumber to go the police station and explain the facts.
Accordingly, they both went there and explained the facts before the Inspector, who allowed them to leave the police station after conducting enquiry. Allegedly, no FIR was registered at that stage and the same was registered the next day for the offence under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Subsequently, the Inspector contacted the Special Team constituted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) and asked them to conduct investigation. On the particular day, the Special Team was headed by one Head Constable, who took the custody of the deceased. It was alleged that the deceased was taken to a veterinary hospital during night hours, wherein he was brutally attacked by the Special Team of policemen.
Subsequently, two more men including deceased’s brother were taken into custody and they were also beaten up. It was also alleged that thereafter, the team took the deceased to a boys hospital during morning hours and brutally attacked him there as well. Allegedly, he was taken to a private grove and no recovery was made in his residence during the search operation. Again, they took him inside the temple premises and kept him behind the office of Executive Officer wherein he was brutally beaten up with lethal weapons and chilli powder was poured on his face and private parts. Thereafter, he was taken to a government hospital wherein the doctors declared him brought dead.
Court’s Observations
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “We have enquired about the preservation of the CCTV footages. The Executive Officer of the Temple, who is present before this Court, informed that one Sub Inspector of Police, namely, Ramachandran has taken entire CCTV footages along with DVR and hard disk. … The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the official respondents informed that the CCTV footages collected from the temple are kept in the office of the District Special Branch (Technical Wing).”
The Court said that the Respondents are bound to ensure that original CCTV footages and any mirror copies made thereof are preserved intact and not subjected to any deletion, overwriting or editing.
“The present custody and status of the CCTV footages, including whether a clean copy was made in the presence of an independent official or Magistrate and what chain of custody protocols have been maintained. Whether any forensic certification of footage was undertaken and whether any tampering is ruled out is also a question to be investigated”, it also noted.
Considering the fact that the State conceded that it is a case of custodial death due to brutal attack caused by the Special Team, the Court passed the following Interim Order –
“(i) This Court requests Mr.S.John Sundarlal Suresh, learned IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, to conduct a thorough enquiry into the custodial death of the deceased Ajith Kumar by commencing the enquiry forthwith and submit a report before this Court on 08.07.2025;
(ii) As per the statement of the learned Additional Advocate General, the State Government shall initiate all appropriate actions against the higher officials, who are all responsible and accountable for the custodial death of the deceased Ajith Kumar and submit a status report before this Court on or before 08.07.2025;
(iii) The Inspector of Police, Superintendent of Police and the Investigating Officer are directed to hand over the case file, CDR Records of the higher officials and the Special Team members, including Deputy Superintendent of Police, Inspector of Police and also the de facto complainant and the CCTV footages to the learned IV Additional District Judge by 02.07.2025 and the learned IV Additional District Judge shall keep all the evidences in a safe custody at Madurai District Court Campus until further orders; and
(iv) The State shall provide necessary protection to the eyewitnesses to the case.”
Accordingly, the High Court listed the case on July 8, 2025 for further consideration.
Cause Title- Karthickraja v. The Home Secretary & Ors. (Case Number: W.P.(MD) No.17975 of 2025)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Henri Patrick Tiphange, R.M. Arun Swaminathan, R. Ramasamy, and R. Alagumani.
Respondents: AAG Ajmal Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) T. Senthil Kumar, Government Pleader P. Thilak Kumar, and Spl. Govt. Pleader P. Subbaraj.
