Hansura Bai vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

2025 INSC 711

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)

J U D G M E N T
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
th
the judgment dated 20 December, 2024, passed by
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.05.15
19:01:08 IST
Reason:
1


1
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior 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
2
457 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . 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

nd
house on 2 June, 2024. The FIR of the said incident
rd
came to be registered on 3 June, 2024.
5. The appellants are mother and aunt respectively
of Deva Pardhi, whose marriage was scheduled to be
th
solemnised on 14 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
th
Magistrate on 15 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

3
324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ,
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.
th
14. The High Court, vide order dated 20
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
th th
incident dated 13 /14 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
4
in Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat , wherein it
was held as follows:

4
(2011) 5 SCC 79.
14
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3450 of 2025

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
5
Investigation .
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
th th
incident dated 13 /14 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