LexHANSURA BAI & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 280 : 2025 INSC 711 Hansura Bai & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2647 of 2025) 15 May 2025 [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the Single Judge erred in rejecting the prayers made by the appellants (victim’s family) for transferring the investigation into the custodial death of the victim, to some other investigating agency; and to direct the release of sole eye-witness (victim’s uncle) to the custodial torture, on bail. Headnotes† Custodial death – Transfer of investigation – When to be allowed – ‘nemo judex in causa sua’: Held: The incident involved the death of a young man in police custody by the local police officials, where though an FIR was registered, but till date even after lapse of eight months, not one of the police official has been arrested – Involvement of the police officials in the custodial death of the victim is clear from the statement of the sole eye-witness (victim’s uncle) to the custodial torture and is further corroborated during the magisterial inquiry – Local police officials prevented the victims’ family that tried to lodge the FIR immediately after the incident – It was only after the magisterial inquiry was conducted that the FIR was registered wherein the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder was omitted – On facts, the investigation by the local police is not being carried out in a fair and transparent manner – Victim’s uncle expressed serious threat perception at the hands of police and prison officials which was accepted by High Court – Present is a classic case of ‘nemo judex in causa sua’ meaning that ‘no one should be a judge in his own cause’ – Investigation transferred to CBI. [Paras 26-31] * Author [2025] 6 S.C.R. 281 Hansura Bai & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Witness Protection Scheme – Victim’s uncle was sole eye- witness to the torture and custodial death of the victim – Duty of the State to provide him safety and security: Held: On facts, an attempt was made to somehow implicate the victim’s uncle, the star witness of the custodial death, in multiple cases to demoralize him and prevent him from deposing against the errant police officials – Liberty granted to him to directly move the High Court for bail in all the cases where he was implicated after the incident of 13th/14th July, 2024 where he alongwith the victim were forcibly taken away by the police in relation to a theft case – Further, it is the duty of the State to provide him protection either in prison or after being released on bail, direction issued. [Para 36] Criminal Law – Transfer of investigation – Power to transfer investigation – Exercise of – Discussed. [Para 12] Case Law Cited Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat [2011] 5 SCR 729 : (2011) 5 SCC 79 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Custodial death; Death of a young man in police custody; Transfer of investigation to CBI; Sole eye-witness to the torture and custodial death; Victim’s uncle; Involvement of the police officials in the custodial death; Local police officials; Investigation by the local police not fair and transparent; Autopsy of the dead body; Doctors pressurised/influenced; Errant police officials; ‘nemo judex in causa sua’; ‘no one should be a judge in his own cause’; Investigation transferred to CBI; Witness Protection Scheme. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2647 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2024 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in IA No. 12328 of 2024 282 [2025] 6 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: Ms. Payoshi Roy, Siddhartha, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Ms. Nikita Sonavane, Sagar Soni, Ms. Maheshwari Mawase, Ms. Madhvi Gomathieswaran, Bharathimohan M., Avinash Kumar, Ms. V. Swetha, Vairawan A.S. Advs. for the Respondents: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Nachiketa Joshi, A.A.G., Ms. Radhika, Yashraj Singh Bundela, Abhinav Shrivastava, Ms. Saloni, Arpit Garg, Dhruv Sharma, Shikhar Goel, Pranav Sachdeva, Shivam Gaur, Nitin Sharma. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Mehta, J. 1. Heard. 2. Leave granted. 3. The appellants herein have approached this Court, through this appeal by special leave, assailing the judgment dated 20th December, 2024, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior1 in Writ Petition No. 33416 of 2024, w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.