Custodial deaths: Are they preventable?

Custodial deaths necessarily lead to an investigation — statutory or otherwise — and the need thereafter to convince the average citizen that there had been no foul play. This is why jobs in the police and prisons departments are high risk, needing extreme consideration from government and the public, and a judicious appraisal of facts surrounding a death. 

The history of Indian Police is pockmarked by several unfortunate episodes of police violence against persons in custody. I can still recall how the Kerala Police was rocked by a scandal in the late 1970s when the Crime Branch CID came to adverse notice for running a so-called ‘camp’ in which a young engineering student, Rajan, was allegedly tortured to death in illegal custody. Several police officials, including a DIG of Police, were convicted. The latter’s conviction was however overturned on appeal. There have been several cases in the distant past of a few Tamil Nadu Police personnel being prosecuted and convicted for causing the death of suspects held in custody. 

Let us face it. Custodial deaths are not peculiar to India. They occur the world over, and their frequency varies with countries. According to Crime in India 2015, the annual publication of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) of the Union Home Ministry (MHA), the period 2001-13, saw 1,275 such deaths in police custody, approximately a little less than 100 per year. The period 2001-10 saw 12,727 deaths in judicial custody, namely, in our prisons to which courts remand convicts or those under trial. 

Although the National Police Commission (1977) recommended a mandatory judicial enquiry in every case of death in police custody, what really happens are magisterial enquiries held by an Executive Magistrate, who is part of the Revenue administration. The credibility of such enquiries is very low, because you cannot expect such Magistrates to be independent and assail police conduct, unless there is an outrageous incident which has provoked public opinion greatly. This is a serious lacuna in the administration of criminal justice in the country. It is the practicality rather than an attempt to cover up a misdeed that is the reason for not holding an enquiry into every death in custody. Also, to expect the judiciary to appoint one of its officers to look into an alleged death due to police violence amounts to asking for the moon. 

The judiciary is already overburdened, and it cannot appoint a judge to hear facts of a case with patience and come to quick findings. What should cause the greatest concern to the law abiding citizen and the zealous human rights activist are deaths in police custody. This is particularly because, the image of the police in India remains sordid, even after seven decades of Independence. The impression that our policemen misconduct themselves with impunity has got stuck in the average Indian’s mind. This is unfortunate, but an impression that cannot be wished away. The judiciary and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) no doubt keep a close eye on the situation. Nevertheless, such vigilance is not proof against police arbitrariness and physical violence against crime suspects. 

A fear of the police prevents exposure by the citizen or a victim to go to town with accounts of police abuse of authority.  Deaths in police custody fall into two categories. They occur very often from natural causes — namely poor health of the deceased held in custody — or due to police torture. Logically, it is the latter that is a matter of worry. Also condemnable are deaths of suspects held illegally and off the record at some police stations or other facilities accessible to the police, such as hotels or guest houses. 

Except for a small percent of the cases where a person is held in custody to extort money or settle personal scores, a majority of deaths in police custody occur during the course of a criminal investigation and the overzealousness of police officers to crack an unsolved crime. The use of torture to extract information on a reported murder or theft has been age-old since the British times. This unfortunate legacy continues, although instances of abuse of police authority are declining. 

While the fear of criminal action if found out acts as a deterrent, there is also the phenomenon of non-reporting of cases of police torture. We would have been gratified to see enlightenment among the police grass roots that induces them to behave in conformity with the law and requirements of a respect for human rights. This has however not happened. It is not as if the policemen at the bottom are alone guilty for this sad state of affairs. A small number of those in the higher echelons are also votaries of the use of physical torture to solve cases. Again, they are under pressure from the victims’ families and the political executive to produce quick results in an ongoing investigation into a sensational crime that has attracted huge public and media interest. These invisible individuals who are in the background and who wield a lot of influence in society and government are as much guilty as policemen, who indulge in third degree methods to force a confession to crime or abetment of it. This is the reality on the ground. 

How do you tackle the problem of custodial deaths? 

Enhancing the penalty for policemen found violating the human rights of suspects held in lawful or illegal custody is no answer. Just as capital sentence has had only a marginal effect on the statistics of homicides, severe penalties is a poor substitute for sensitising all ranks of the police against use of torture. It is senior officers — especially those drawn into the IPS — who need to be convinced that it is barbaric to inflict pain on a crime suspect. If they are not converted to this ethical stand, very little can be done to transform those at the bottom, particularly at the cutting edge of Constabulary.  In my view, tight supervision (including surprise checks of police lock-ups), effective training of the Constabulary and Sub-Inspectors —both entry level and mid-career — will greatly help to reduce the incidence of custodial violence. 

Monitoring of events in police stations through close-circuit TVs is one suggestion that has been aired by some critics of the police. I am sure there will be stiff resistance to such a move because of the general lack of transparency in the Indian Police. In contrast, in the UK, every police interrogation of a suspect is recorded on video. Also of interest to Indian readers is the fact that every patrol constable in that country wears a video-camera. 

This is some measure of deterrence against police highhandedness in dealing with the public. Ultimately, a lot will devolve on the quality and fairness of recruitment. If money plays a role here, we will be directly contributing to the moral decay of our police forces. The venality of our policemen is directly proportional to human right abuses. As corruption in recruitment increases, you can see a rise in police misconduct. It is as simple as that. Those in power will be reluctant to admit the truth of this.