Hansura Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025)

HANSURA BAI & ANR. ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellants herein have approached this

Court, through this appeal by special leave, assailing Signature Not Verified

the judgment dated 20th December, 2024, passed by Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2025.05.15 19:01:08 IST Reason: 1 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, 18602. As per the

complainant, substantial articles of silver and gold

jewellery and cash were stolen from the safe of his

1 Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘High Court’. 2 For short, ‘IPC’.

2 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025 house on 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

3 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025 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

4 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025 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 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

5 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025 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

6 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20233,

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

3 For short, ‘BNS’.

7 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025 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.

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

8 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025 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

9 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025 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

10 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025 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.

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

11 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025 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

12 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025 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

13 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025 reference may be 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

4 (2011) 5 SCC 79.

14 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025 independent agency is looking into the matter and that would lend the final outcome of the investigation 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

15 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025 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.

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

16 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025 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

17 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025 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

18 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025 forthwith be transferred to the Central Bureau of

Investigation5.

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 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

5 For short, “CBI”.

19 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025 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.

20 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025

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.

….……………………J. (VIKRAM NATH)

..…………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) NEW DELHI;

MAY 15, 2025.

21 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025