The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a significant ruling on state accountability, has held that the burden lies heavily on the State to explain the cause of death of a person in police custody through credible and independent evidence. The Court declared that a failure to do so, particularly when ante-mortem injuries are present, constitutes a violation of the right to life and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Applying this principle, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru directed the state government to pay ₹5 lakhs in compensation to the family of Durgendra Katholiya, who died just hours after being taken into police custody. The compensation, the court noted, serves the dual purpose of providing relief to the family and acting as a deterrent against future violations by state authorities.
Background of the Case
The case was brought by the wife and parents of the deceased, Durgendra Katholiya. He was arrested on March 29, 2025, in connection with a cheating case (FIR No. 47/2025) at Police Station Arjuni. On March 31, 2025, he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari, at 5:00 p.m. and appeared to be in good health before being remanded to police custody. By 8:00 p.m. the same evening, he was pronounced dead.
The petitioners alleged that Katholiya was subjected to brutal torture, citing 25-30 injuries observed on his body. They filed a writ petition after their complaints to senior police officials failed to result in an FIR against the responsible officers.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioners argued that the death was a clear case of custodial violence and a gross abuse of power, demanding an independent investigation and compensation for the violation of Article 21.
The State countered that Katholiya was accused of large-scale financial fraud. It claimed his injuries were sustained during an assault by a mob prior to his arrest and were “simple in nature” and “3-6 days old.” The State attributed his death to “natural causes,” specifically “asphyxia leading to cardio-respiratory arrest,” and denied any police misconduct.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court centered its analysis on the State’s constitutional responsibility. It found the timeline—a healthy man dying within three hours of entering police custody—to be an “extraordinary” event demanding judicial scrutiny.
The court held that the State failed to discharge its heavy burden of explaining the death. The judgment stated, “A mere plea of ‘natural death’ cannot absolve the State of its constitutional responsibility unless the circumstances are fully established through credible, independent evidence.” The court found the State’s explanation for the twenty-four ante-mortem injuries listed in the postmortem report to be unconvincing.
The bench observed, “The multiplicity and distribution of the injuries, coupled with the short span of time between judicial remand and death, unmistakably reveal that the deceased was subjected to severe physical assault and inhuman treatment while in police custody.” This led the court to the “inescapable conclusion that the death was a result of police atrocities and custodial excess.”
Citing landmark Supreme Court cases, the High Court affirmed that compensation in public law is an acknowledged remedy for the violation of fundamental rights and serves as “exemplary damages” against the State for failing in its public duty.
The Final Decision
Having established the State’s failure to explain the death and its violation of Article 21, the court proceeded to award compensation. The petitioners’ counsel did not press for the registration of an FIR or a CBI probe, focusing solely on the prayer for compensation.
The Court directed the State of Chhattisgarh to pay:
- ₹3,00,000 to the widow, Durga Devi Katholiya.
- ₹1,00,000 each to the parents, Laxman Sonkar and Sushila Sonkar.
The payment must be completed within eight weeks. The court emphasized that the compensation is intended to provide “some measure of justice is extended to the bereaved family and an institutional message is sent that such police atrocities shall not go unaccounted for.”
