KERALA| 10TH JULY 2025– The Kerala High Court recently ruled that the absence of government sanction cannot be used as a ground to protect police officers accused of custodial torture.
This significant judgment was delivered by Justice Kauser Edappagath in the case Sudha v. State of Kerala & Ors.
BACKGROUND: SECTION 197 CRPC AND POLICE IMMUNITY
Under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), prior government sanction is required to prosecute public servants, including police officers, for acts done in discharge of their official duty or purportedly in discharge of such duty.
However, the Court held that custodial torture can never be classified as an official act.
“The act of custodial torture inflicted by a police officer without justification on an arrestee cannot be shielded under the protective mantle of Section 197 of CrPC. It can never be said that a police officer acts or purports to act in discharge of his official duty when he inflicts custodial torture on an arrestee,” the judgment stated.
THE CASE OF SUDHA
The Court was considering a revision petition filed by Sudha, a woman from a scheduled caste community who worked as a housemaid.
She was falsely accused of stealing gold sovereigns by her employers and taken to the police station, where she was beaten and tortured for over three hours.
Eventually, the employers informed the police that the gold had been found in their home, and Sudha was released — but only after threats and intimidation to remain silent.
Sudha later filed a private complaint before a Magistrate Court. The court found sufficient grounds to proceed against both the employers and the police officers under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
However, when the case was transferred to a sessions court, the court discharged all the accused. The employers were discharged for lack of prima facie evidence, while the police officers were discharged citing absence of prior government sanction.
HIGH COURT’S STRONG OBSERVATIONS
Justice Edappagath categorically rejected the sessions court’s approach.
Referring to Sudha’s medical records, the Court noted severe injuries supporting her allegations. The judge emphasized that torture is not an act performed in the discharge of official duties.
“There may be circumstances which may justify the use of force by the police while discharging their official duty. But that is not the case here. The custodial assault as alleged by the petitioner in detail in her complaint and sworn statement, can never be justified under the shelter of performance of official duty,” the judgment stated.
The Court also stressed the larger implications of custodial torture:
“The courts must not lose sight of the fact that custodial torture is perhaps one of the worst kinds of crime in a civilised society, governed by the rule of law and poses a serious threat to an orderly civilised society. Police excesses and the maltreatment of detainees/undertrial prisoners or suspects tarnish the image of any civilised nation and encourage the men in ‘Khaki’ to consider themselves to be above the law and sometimes even to become law unto themselves. Unless stern measures are taken to check the malady, the foundations of the criminal justice delivery system would be shaken. The courts must, therefore, deal with such cases in a realistic manner and with the sensitivity which they deserve; otherwise, the common man may lose faith in the judiciary itself,” the judgment underscored.
FINAL ORDER
The Kerala High Court set aside the sessions court’s order to the extent that it discharged the police officers. It directed the sessions court to frame charges and proceed with the trial against them.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION
Sudha was represented by advocates V Sajith Kumar, Josie Mathew, Neena J Kalyan, and Ammu M.
The police officers were represented by advocate AS Shammy Raj.
Senior Public Prosecutor EC Bineesh appeared for the State.
