The Supreme Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a regular criminal case and conduct an expeditious investigation into the custodial death holding that the circumstances surrounding his death warranted immediate criminal investigation and that the State authorities had failed to act despite the findings of a judicial inquiry.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed the State of Chhattisgarh to pay ₹25 lakh as interim compensation to the deceased’s legal heirs. The Court clarified that the final quantum of compensation would be determined while adjudicating the petition.
The case arose from the arrest of Shravan Suryavanshi in connection with FIR No. 47 dated January 18, 2024, registered at Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.
Buy Now: 70+ Judgements Indirect Tax – July 2026 | E-Magazine
According to the FIR, the deceased was allegedly found possessing three bottles, each containing two litres of raw Mahua liquor, making a total quantity of six litres valued at approximately ₹1,200. He was arrested by Head Constable No. 195 Uma Shankar Rathore and taken to the police station. Following his arrest and remand, he was lodged in Central Jail, Bilaspur. His health subsequently deteriorated and he was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, on January 21, 2024. He died while undergoing treatment on January 22, 2024.
The deceased’s wife and daughters approached the Chhattisgarh High Court seeking, among other reliefs, a direction for a proper investigation into his custodial death and compensation of ₹50 lakh.
The circumstances surrounding the death became particularly significant because the post-mortem examination recorded multiple injuries on the deceased’s body.
The medical board noticed injuries including a laceration on the occipital scalp, swelling around the wrist and legs, and contusions on the thigh and back of the body. The post-mortem report opined that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest resulting from complications arising from a head injury caused by a hard and blunt object. The injuries were recorded as ante-mortem.
The report further assessed the approximate age of the injuries. The scalp injury was apparently within one day, while injuries to the thigh and nape of the neck were estimated to be between two and six days old.
These findings assumed considerable importance before the Supreme Court because they raised the possibility that the injuries had been sustained during the period when the deceased was in State custody.
Following the custodial death, the Superintendent of Central Jail, Bilaspur, requested a judicial inquiry. The District and Sessions Judge referred the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who assigned the inquiry to a Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Judicial Magistrate conducted the inquiry and submitted a report dated July 22, 2024. The report opined that the death appeared to have been caused by complications arising from the head injury.
Despite this finding, the deceased’s family alleged that no effective action was taken against those responsible and that the State did not provide adequate compensation. They consequently moved the Chhattisgarh High Court seeking compensation and appropriate action against the officers allegedly responsible for the custodial death.
The Chhattisgarh High Court, in its judgment dated October 3, 2024, held that the deceased had been subjected to custodial violence and that his death had occurred as a result thereof.
The High Court recognised that compensation could be awarded in the public law jurisdiction for violation of fundamental rights and held that the State was liable to compensate the deceased’s widow and daughters. It observed that compensation in such circumstances should have a deterrent effect on State authorities and should reflect the loss suffered by the family.
However, despite these findings, the High Court awarded only ₹1 lakh as compensation, directing that it be paid within eight weeks. It further directed that the amount would carry interest at 9% per annum in the event of non-payment within the prescribed period.
The High Court did not issue a consequential direction for registration of an FIR or investigation into the circumstances leading to the custodial death.
The Supreme Court found the State’s response deeply concerning.
The Court noted that the deceased had been taken into custody for an offence carrying a maximum punishment of three years and had subsequently died while in State custody, allegedly because of injuries sustained during that period. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had itself found that the death resulted from violence during custody, yet had stopped at awarding ₹1 lakh and had not directed registration of an FIR or a criminal investigation.
The Supreme Court had earlier directed the State to explain what steps had been taken concerning the custodial death. It noted that the State’s counter-affidavit did not disclose any steps concerning registration of an FIR or investigation. The Court also indicated that the compensation awarded by the High Court appeared wholly inadequate and disproportionate to the gravity of the loss.
During the hearing on August 4, 2026, the Director General of Police, the Director General (Prisons) and the Principal Secretary (Home) of Chhattisgarh appeared before the Supreme Court through video conference.
The Director General of Police took the position that no criminal case had been registered because the judicial inquiry report under Section 176 CrPC had allegedly not been received by the police. The Director General (Prisons) similarly offered an explanation for why the judicial inquiry report had not been forwarded to the police for necessary action.
The Supreme Court rejected this explanation in strong terms. It noted that the judicial inquiry had been completed and the report had been submitted on July 22, 2024. The Court said the stance taken by the senior State officials demonstrated a disturbing disregard for the statutory procedure governing custodial deaths.
The Court further found that the explanation that no police or disciplinary action had been initiated because the inquiry report had not been served on the police was untenable. It noted that the State’s own pleadings before the High Court demonstrated awareness of the judicial inquiry, and that the inquiry report was available on the record when the High Court decided the matter.
The Supreme Court therefore described the submission that there had been no occasion to register a criminal case because the report had not been received as “patently false and wholly reprehensible.”
The Supreme Court also examined the medical records and identified a serious discrepancy concerning the recorded cause of death.
According to the Court, the medical report prepared at the jail at the time of death recorded cardiopulmonary arrest with aspiration pneumonitis and referred to alcoholic withdrawal and delirium tremens. That report did not mention the head injury or the other external injuries subsequently documented in the post-mortem examination.
In contrast, the post-mortem report recorded multiple external injuries and attributed the cause of death to cardio-respiratory arrest arising from a head injury and its complications caused by a hard and blunt object. The post-mortem report was placed before the Supreme Court only through an additional affidavit filed pursuant to the Court’s earlier directions.
The Supreme Court placed particular emphasis on the timing and age of the injuries recorded in the post-mortem report.
The Court observed that the injuries, particularly the scalp laceration estimated to be within one day and other contusions estimated to be two to six days old, raised the possibility that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries during the period of his custody.
In the Court’s view, these circumstances clearly warranted immediate registration of an FIR and a thorough investigation into the circumstances leading to the custodial death. The Court also took note of the fact that the post-mortem report had not been placed before the High Court and that relevant material emerged only after the Supreme Court intervened.
Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court held that the interests of justice required an independent investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The Court directed the Director of the CBI to forthwith ensure registration of a regular criminal case concerning the custodial death and entrusted the investigation to a senior CBI officer. The investigation has been directed to be conducted expeditiously, with the Investigating Officer’s report to be placed before the Supreme Court on the next date of hearing.
The Court also directed that the conduct of the concerned State officials in failing to act upon the judicial inquiry report should form part of the investigation.
The Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, has been directed to transmit the complete case records to the Director of the CBI through a special messenger within one week.
The Supreme Court further directed that all officials found responsible for custodial violence should be proceeded against and prosecuted in accordance with law after completion of the investigation.
The Supreme Court also significantly enhanced the immediate financial relief available to the family.
It noted that the High Court had found that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of his family and that he had died an unnatural death on account of violence suffered during State custody. The State did not dispute these findings before the Supreme Court.
As an interim measure, the Supreme Court ordered the State of Chhattisgarh to pay ₹25 lakh to the petitioners. The amount is to be deposited into the bank account of petitioner No. 1, Lahra Bai Tamre, within four weeks. The Court made it clear that the final amount of compensation would be determined while deciding the substantive petition.
The Supreme Court has directed the matter to be listed again on October 13, 2026. Copies of the order have been directed to be electronically transmitted to the Principal Secretary (Home), Director General of Police and Director General (Prisons) of Chhattisgarh, as well as the Director of the CBI.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
