Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The issue of inadequate provisions for tackling the problem of custodial deaths has long been prevalent in India. Witnessing a rise in deaths occurring due to custodial torture, Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended in 2015. The amendment inserted clause 1(A) to the section which stated that where a person dies or disappears or allegations of rape against officers by women arise while in custody, an inquiry by the Judicial or the Metropolitan Magistrate of the local jurisdiction where the act was committed is necessary.
The interpretation and scope of the sub-section were dealt with in the case Mohamad Nazma Begum v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2010), where it was observed that inquiry into a person’s death while in custody was necessary only in cases where suspicion of administering torture or any other offence arose. While this provision may prima facie appear as an adequate provision to keep in check and punish officers indulging in such criminal acts of torture, the statistics presented by the National Camping Against Torture (NCAT) depict a contrary view. The India Annual Report on Torture 2019 has identified trends of torture being used as a tool for oppression behind a façade of discipline against persons in custody. The majority of custodial deaths were claimed to be natural deaths.
Noting such raises in custodial deaths, the Law Commission of Report in its 152nd report highlighted the violation of a person’s fundamental rights and the state's failure to protect their life and liberty. It was further observed that inquiries made in such cases were inadequate and unsatisfactory. Hence, it recommended that amendments be made to existing laws and referring to Section 176(1)(A) of CrPC, the report stated that restricting such inquiry to just suspicious cases is a violation of human rights and recommended that a proper inquiry be conducted for ‘every case’ in which death, disappearance or assault was alleged.
Taking into consideration the Commission’s Report and the threat to basic human rights of people, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), revoked its circular issued in 2010 in the above-mentioned case and declared that Section 176(1)(A) was to be interpreted in a manner where a mandatory inquiry by Judicial or the Metropolitan Magistrate in all cases where death, disappearance or other offences are alleged.
86540
103860
630
114
59824