JITENDRA RAMNARAYAN RATHOD v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR
Framing Charges for Murder in Custodial Death - Prima Facie Case Established by Evidence of Torture and Adverse Inference from Procedural Lapses by Police.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:16467
Decision Date: 06-04-2026
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000; The Police Act, 1861; The Constitution of India; Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960
- Facts: In April 2014, Agnello Valdaris and three others were arrested by the Wadala Railway Police. While in custody, the four were allegedly subjected to brutal physical torture and sexual abuse. The prosecution alleged that on April 18, 2014, while being escorted for medical treatment, Agnello attempted to flee, ran onto the railway tracks, and died after being hit by a train. However, the victim's father (Respondent No.3) and co-detainees alleged that the death was a homicidal result of custodial torture. Medical reports and post-mortem findings revealed injuries significantly older than the train incident, including internal head injuries and contusions consistent with torture. Furthermore, police failed to preserve CCTV footage and defied Magistrate orders for timely production of the deceased.
- Procedural Posture: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed charge-sheets for various offences but excluded Section 302 (Murder) of the IPC. The Special Judge, partly allowing a Protest Petition by Respondent No.3, directed the framing of charges under Sections 302 and 295-A. Conflicting judgments by two Single Judges of the Bombay High Court—one upholding the order and another setting it aside—led the Supreme Court to refer the matter to a Division Bench.
- Issue: Whether there exists sufficient prima facie material to frame a charge of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and other police officers in a case of alleged custodial death.
- Holding: Yes, the Court held that there is sufficient material to frame the charge, as the death occurred under abnormal circumstances within police custody.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the standard for framing charges under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. is "strong suspicion" rather than "proof beyond reasonable doubt". It noted several critical factors: the expert post-mortem report detailed injuries attributable to torture 12 to 96 hours before death; the police failed to provide a justifiable reason for suspicious movements of the deceased between different lock-ups; and the police disregarded medical advice for an x-ray. Relying on the "fourthly" clause of Section 300 IPC, the Court observed that if torture was so severe that the victim ran toward a moving train to escape it, the act of the accused attracted the definition of murder. The Court emphasized that in custodial death cases, direct ocular evidence is rare, and the burden lies on the police to explain circumstances uniquely within their knowledge.
🔒 For Members Only