IN A SIGNIFICANT RULING YESTERDAY, the Supreme Court not only ordered an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the custodial torture of a police constable but also awarded compensation of Rs. 50 lakh to the victim.The Court further directed that the police officials found responsible for the custodial torture be arrested immediately, and no later than one month from the date of the judgment.A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that such directions were necessary to uphold the constitutional mandate to protect the fundamental rights of the victim.The Bench was ruling on a petition filed by police constable Khursheed Ahmad Chohan, challenging the order of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, which dismissed his petition seeking the registration of an FIR against the police personnel, the transfer of the investigation to the CBI, and the quashing of the FIR filed against him.A brutal tortureOn February 17, 2023, Chohan was summoned by Aijaz Ahmad Naiko, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kupwara, Jammu and Kashmir, to report to the Office of the Senior Superintendent of Police on February 20, 2023, in connection with an inquiry related to a narcotics matter.Chohan alleged that upon reaching the Office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, he was detained and subjected to brutal custodial torture for six consecutive days. His genitalia and testicles were amputated, pepper was sprinkled on his private parts, and he was given electric shocks, which led to a fracture in his foot. He was shifted to the District Hospital, Kupwara, in a comatose condition. .The Court further directed that the police officials found responsible for the custodial torture be arrested immediately..Due to his serious medical condition, he was transferred first to the District Hospital, Baramulla, and then, on February 26, 2023, sent to the Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (‘SKIMS’), Soura. At SKIMS, Chohan, accompanied by Sub-Inspector Asiq Hussain, underwent surgery for the injuries caused by the amputation of his testicles, which had been brought to the hospital in a polythene bag by the said Sub-Inspector.On February 26, 2023, Munner Ahmad, Sub-Inspector and In-Charge, Police Post Tad, Karnah registered an FIR against Chohan, for an offense punishable under Section 309 (attempt to commit suicide) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.Chohan’s wife immediately approached the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kupwara, requesting the registration of an FIR against the police personnel responsible for subjecting her husband to brutal custodial torture and inflicting life-threatening injuries. However, no action was taken by the SHO. Aggrieved, she approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Kupwara, who also refused to initiate any proceedings against the erring police officials.High Court refused to quash FIREventually, Chohan approached the High Court, seeking the registration of an FIR and other reliefs, including the quashing of the FIR against him. .World Organization Against Torture flags India as “high risk” country for police torture: Some reflections.On September 18, 2023, the High Court refused to quash the FIR against Chohan and, regarding the registration of an FIR against the officers who tortured him, directed a preliminary inquiry by the Senior Superintendent of Police into the allegations. If the inquiry substantiated the claims, an FIR was to be registered, and the investigation was to be entrusted to a Deputy Superintendent of Police.It was in this context that Chohan approached the Supreme Court.In the Supreme CourtOn May 14, 2025, appearing for Chohan, Senior Advocate Anand Grover argued that the case involved grave allegations of custodial torture, which the perpetrators attempted to cover up as a suicide attempt by the appellant. He submitted that the High Court failed to recognise the clear and egregious violation of the appellant’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and committed grave injustice by merely ordering a preliminary inquiry rather than mandatorily directing the registration of an FIR, as required by the law laid down in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. (2013).Regarding the FIR against Chohan, Grover submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate that Section 309 of the IPC had been rendered redundant by virtue of Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. He argued that Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act creates an irrebuttable presumption that any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed to be under severe stress and shall not be tried or punished under Section 309 of the IPC.The same day, Shailesh Madiyal, the Additional Advocate General, appearing for the Union Territory, submitted that the allegations of custodial torture were a fabrication intended to cover up Chohan’s attempted suicide and divert attention from his culpability in the offenses under investigation, thereby discrediting the investigation and maligning the authorities involved..The Bench noted that it was undisputed that the dismembered genitalia were brought to the hospital in a separate plastic bag by a Sub-Inspector, a fact that shocked its conscience..What did the Supreme Court say?Rejecting the submissions of the Union Territory, the Bench noted that it was undisputed that the dismembered genitalia were brought to the hospital in a separate plastic bag by a Sub-Inspector, a fact that shocked its conscience.The Bench added that medical documents from SKIMS, Soura-Srinagar, conclusively established the horrific nature of the injuries, which included complete mutilation of the genitalia with both testicles removed, a 10 cm x 5 cm laceration on the scrotum, tenderness on the palms and feet, bruises on the buttocks extending to the thighs, multiple vegetative particles in the rectum, and fractures throughout the body.“The Discharge Summary further provides unequivocal medical evidence that the appellant underwent an extensive surgical procedure, including ‘exploration and repair of corporal bodies with end-to-end anastomosis of urethra, ligation of spermatic cord, repair of scrotal laceration, and debridement of necrotic tissue,’” the Bench noted.On the non-registration of an FIR, the Bench observed that the allegations made by the appellant and his wife unequivocally disclosed a cognizable offense, making the registration of an FIR mandatory.“In the present case, the allegations of custodial violence are leveled against police officers of the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara, who illegally detained the appellant and allegedly subjected him to systematic torture, resulting in permanent disability and trauma. The nature of custodial violence, where the victim is entirely at the mercy of state authorities, demands the immediate registration of an FIR to preserve evidence, protect witnesses, and ensure that the institutional machinery does not have the time or opportunity to fabricate a defense or destroy incriminating material,” the Bench underscored..“The stark disparity between the trivial description of ‘cutting his vein’ in the FIR and the barbaric reality of complete castration and systematic torture exposes the mala fide intent behind registering this counter FIR.”.“The failure of local police authorities to register an FIR despite clear disclosure of cognizable offenses, supported by compelling medical evidence, constitutes a direct violation of the appellant’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Bench added.The Bench also found it appropriate to transfer the case to the CBI. It observed that the unprecedented gravity of this case, involving brutal and inhuman custodial torture characterised by the complete mutilation of the appellant’s genitalia, represented one of the most barbaric instances of police atrocity, which the State was attempting to defend and cover up with its pervasive power.The Bench added that the State’s suicide theory was debunked when assessed in light of the medical evidence, which decisively ruled out the possibility of the harm being self-inflicted..Incarceration of Khurram Parvez and Irfan Mehraj has made human rights work in Kashmir extremely difficult, FIDH’s Juliette Rousselot.The Bench underscored that the respondent’s narrative revealed a disturbing pattern of systematic cover-up and abuse of authority, further strengthening the appellant’s claim for a CBI investigation.The Bench highlighted that the appellant’s wife attempted to file a complaint immediately after the incident through a legal notice dated March 2, 2023. The respondents dismissively stated in their response in court that the allegations were frivolous, lacked substance, and hence were not addressed.This cavalier dismissal of serious allegations of custodial torture, the Bench held, demonstrated institutional bias and a predetermined mindset to protect the accused police officers.“The influence exerted by local police officials is evident from the fact that no proper investigation was initiated despite clear medical evidence of torture. Instead, a counter FIR No. 32 of 2023 was registered against the victim himself under Section 309 of the IPC to create a false narrative,” the Bench said.The Bench added that the High Court’s failure to appreciate that the accused were not ordinary citizens but police officers wielding considerable power and influence within the local administrative and investigative machinery demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of custodial torture cases.“Police officers, by virtue of their position, have access to evidence, witnesses, and investigative records and possess the institutional authority to manipulate, suppress, or destroy crucial evidence that could establish their culpability,” the Bench underscored.The Bench ruled that directing the Senior Superintendent of Police, who summoned the appellant to the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara, to conduct an inquiry at such a belated stage, combined with the pendency of NDPS cases, created a conflict of interest, making it impossible for a fair investigation to be conducted at the local level.“Only an investigation by an independent agency, i.e., the CBI, can restore public faith in the criminal justice system, ensure that this dehumanizing crime does not go unpunished, and guarantee that the truth emerges without institutional bias or cover-up attempts,” the Bench added.The Bench also quashed the FIR against the appellant, finding it vague and manifestly contradictory to the established medical evidence.“The FIR states that the appellant tried to cut his vein with a blade; however, the medical records, as discussed above, reveal that the injuries are far graver and more extensive than what is depicted in this manifestly fabricated narrative. The stark disparity between the trivial description of ‘cutting his vein’ in the FIR and the barbaric reality of complete castration and systematic torture exposes the mala fide intent behind registering this counter FIR,” the Bench added.The Bench has directed the CBI to submit a status report to the court by November 10, 2025..Note: One of the co-founders of The Leaflet represented the appellant in the case.
