Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday, July 1, made some scathing observations in the case of the custodial death of 29-year-old Ajith Kumar, who died after he was allegedly tortured in front of his brother by a special police team in Tamil Nadu’s Sivaganga district.
Ajith, a resident of Madapuram village, was employed as a temporary security guard at the famous Madapuram Badrakaliamman Temple in Tirupuvanam. He was detained on June 27, following a complaint filed by two women, Sivakami and her daughter Nikita, who alleged that ten sovereigns of gold jewellery had gone missing from their car. Ajith collapsed due to injuries from the assault and died on June 28.
After this death, the police claimed that he suffered an epileptic seizure and fell while he was trying to escape them.
Here are five key points from what a bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and AD Maria Clete said:
1. “Even an ordinary murderer would not have caused this much injuries.”
In its preliminary reading of the postmortem findings, the court was shocked by the brutality inflicted on Ajith Kumar. The order noted bluntly: “A plain reading of the nature of the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased would reveal that he was brutally attacked all over the body and died. Even an ordinary murderer would not have caused this much injuries.”
2. The custodial death is “conceded” by the State
The court observed that the government admitted to the custodial death and the use of excessive force. The judges stated, “The State has conceded the custodial death in the present case.”
3. Serious doubts over destruction of evidence
The court expressed deep concern that evidence may already have been tampered with. It pointedly raised questions over the handling of CCTV footage, saying: “Some of the evidence have already been destroyed, and the scene of occurrence has not been properly preserved… CCTV footage collected must be preserved intact and not subjected to any deletion, overwriting or editing.”
4. Local police cannot be trusted with evidence
In a strong indictment of the local police, the court declared them “unsafe custodians” of key evidence since they are directly or indirectly involved in the alleged crime:
“The material evidences are unsafe in the hands of the local police, who are all directly or indirectly interested parties to the custodial death.”
This prompted the court to order that all case files and evidence be handed over to an independent judicial officer.
5. Immediate judicial inquiry and systemic reforms needed
The court ordered a thorough judicial inquiry led by a senior judge and called for steps to protect witnesses and ensure accountability. It directed:
“This Court requests S John Sundarlal Suresh, learned IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, to conduct a thorough enquiry into the custodial death… The State shall provide necessary protection to the eyewitnesses”. The court also hinted at the need for broader reforms, including strict action against higher officials and mechanisms to prevent future custodial deaths.