Hansura Bai & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (CRIMINAL APPEAL) – Supreme Court of India Judgment

I. Case Identification & Vitals

1. Court
Supreme Court of India

2. Case Title
Hansura Bai & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

3. Document Type and Date of Judgment
Judgment, May 15, 2025

4. Case Number
CRIMINAL APPEAL/__/2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)/3450/2025)

5. SCR Citation
NA

6. Neutral Citation
2025 INSC 711

7. Disposal Nature
Appeal Disposed of (with directions)

8. Case Type
CRIMINAL APPEAL

9. Law Applicable
Criminal Law, Constitutional Law

10. Issue for Consideration
The central issue is whether the investigation into a custodial death, where the primary accused are the local police officials themselves, should be transferred to an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to ensure a fair and impartial probe. A related issue is whether the sole eyewitness to the custodial death, who is being implicated in multiple other criminal cases, should be granted bail to ensure his safety and ability to testify freely.

11. Headnote
The Supreme Court, invoking the principle that “no one should be a judge in his own cause,” transferred the investigation of a custodial death case from the local police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Court found that the investigation was not being conducted in a fair and transparent manner, as evidenced by the failure to arrest any of the accused police officials and the omission of the murder charge from the initial FIR. The Court also took serious note of the fact that the sole eyewitness to the custodial torture was being implicated in multiple criminal cases, which appeared to be a deliberate attempt to pressure and demoralize him. While not granting bail directly, the Court gave the eyewitness liberty to approach the High Court and directed the state to provide him with protection under the witness protection scheme.

12. Short Summary in Normal Language
The Supreme Court has ordered a CBI investigation into the death of a young man in police custody in Madhya Pradesh. The Court found that the local police, who were themselves the accused, could not conduct a fair investigation. It also noted that the only eyewitness to the incident was being harassed with multiple false cases. To ensure justice, the Court transferred the case to the CBI and directed that the eyewitness be given police protection.

13. Bench

1. Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath
2. Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta

14. Judgment Authored by
Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta*

II. Procedural & Factual Background

15. Case Start Date
NA

16. Case Arising From
The appeal challenges a judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, dated December 20, 2024. The High Court had dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellants (mother and aunt of the deceased). The petition sought two main reliefs: the transfer of the investigation into the custodial death of Deva Pardhi to an independent agency, and a direction for the release of the sole eyewitness, Gangaram Pardhi, on bail. The High Court had denied both prayers, although it did direct that the eyewitness be shifted to a different jail for his safety.

17. Background and Facts
The case involves the death of Deva Pardhi, who was taken into custody by the local police in connection with a theft case just before his wedding. The police picked him up from his Haldi ceremony along with his uncle, Gangaram Pardhi. The family alleges that both men were taken to the police station and subjected to brutal third-degree torture to force a confession. Deva Pardhi was allegedly hung upside down, beaten, and doused with water, salt, and petrol. He eventually succumbed to his injuries and was declared dead at the hospital.

The sole eyewitness to this incident was Gangaram Pardhi, who was subsequently remanded to judicial custody and implicated in a series of other criminal cases. The family of the deceased filed a writ petition in the High Court, alleging that the local police were shielding their own personnel and that the investigation was a sham. They also expressed grave concerns for the safety of the eyewitness, Gangaram Pardhi.

18. Timeline

• June 3, 2024: An FIR for theft was registered against unknown persons.
• July 14, 2024 (approx.): Deva Pardhi and Gangaram Pardhi were picked up by the police from a wedding ceremony. Deva Pardhi died in custody on the same day.
• July 15, 2024: Gangaram Pardhi was produced before a Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody.
• Date Not Mentioned: A Magisterial Enquiry was conducted, leading to the registration of an FIR (No. 341 of 2024) against the police officials for culpable homicide.
• December 20, 2024: The High Court dismissed the appellants’ writ petition seeking a CBI probe and bail for the eyewitness.
• May 15, 2025: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and transferred the investigation to the CBI.

19. Parties Involved

• Appellants: Hansura Bai & Anr. (Mother and aunt of the deceased, Deva Pardhi)
• Respondents: The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

20. Procedural History

• Lower Court/Tribunal Decisions: The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior dismissed the writ petition seeking a transfer of the investigation to the CBI and the release of the eyewitness on bail.
• Appeals: The appellants filed the present appeal by special leave in the Supreme Court against the High Court’s order.

III. Legal Analysis & Arguments

21. Issues Framed
Not Applicable

22. Areas of Debate

1. Can a fair and impartial investigation into a custodial death be conducted by the same local police agency whose officials are the primary accused?
2. What are the circumstances that warrant the transfer of an investigation to an independent agency like the CBI?
3. How should the judiciary respond to allegations that an eyewitness is being falsely implicated in multiple cases to prevent them from testifying?

23. Cases Cited by Petitioner/Appellant

• Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat ((2011) 5 SCC 79): Cited to support the argument that an investigation should be transferred to an independent agency when the local police are themselves accused, to ensure credibility and public trust.

24. Cases Cited by Respondent/Defendant
NA

25. Acts/Rules/Orders Referred

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)
  • Section 105: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
  • Section 115(2): Voluntarily causing hurt.
  • Section 120: Voluntarily causing hurt to extort a confession.
  • Context: The FIR against the police officials was registered under these sections. The Court noted that the more serious charge of murder was omitted.
• Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
  • Section 3(2)(v): This section was added to the FIR against the police officials.

26. Acts/Rules/Orders Governing the Case

1. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
2. Constitution of India

27. Literature Citation
NA

28. Appearances for Parties

• Advocates:
  • For the Appellants: Ms. Payoshi Roy, Counsel
  • For the State of Madhya Pradesh: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General
• Witnesses: NA
• Other Persons: NA

29. Prayer
The appellants prayed for:

1. The transfer of the investigation into the custodial death of Deva Pardhi to the CBI.
2. A direction for the grant of bail to the sole eyewitness, Gangaram Pardhi.

30. Evidence & Findings

1. Evidence: Statement of the sole eyewitness, Gangaram Pardhi, and the findings of the Magisterial Enquiry.
   • Findings: The Court found that the statement of the eyewitness clearly implicated the police officials in the custodial death. This was further corroborated by the Magisterial Enquiry.
2. Evidence: Post-mortem report of Deva Pardhi.
   • Findings: The report noted multiple contusions and abrasions on the body. The Court was critical of the fact that the Medical Board initially failed to give a conclusive cause of death, suggesting they were “pressurised/influenced” by the local police.

31. Petitioner/Appellant Arguments

1. The local police cannot be trusted to conduct a fair investigation as their own officials are the accused.
2. The investigation is a sham, as no arrests have been made even after eight months.
3. The sole eyewitness, Gangaram Pardhi, is being systematically targeted with false cases to intimidate him and prevent him from testifying.
4. The case should be transferred to the CBI, and the eyewitness should be released on bail to ensure his safety.

32. Respondent/Defendant Arguments

1. The State police are conducting a fair investigation and will proceed against the errant officials once it is complete.
2. The threat perception of the eyewitness has been addressed by shifting him to a different jail.
3. The eyewitness is a “hardened criminal” involved in multiple other cases, and his plea of false implication is without merit.
4. The eyewitness can seek bail through the regular court process, and the Supreme Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction.

V. Judgment & Conclusion

33. Ratio Decidendi

1. The principle of natural justice, nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in his own cause), is paramount. An investigation into allegations against police officials should not be conducted by the same police force, as it would lack credibility and public trust.
2. To ensure a fair and impartial investigation, especially in sensitive cases like custodial death, the power to transfer the investigation to an independent agency like the CBI must be exercised to uphold the interest of justice.
3. When there is evidence to suggest that the sole eyewitness to a grave crime is being systematically implicated in other cases to intimidate or silence them, the higher judiciary must take note and provide necessary protection and remedies.
4. The failure of an investigating agency to make any arrests for a prolonged period in a serious case like custodial death, and the omission of serious charges from the FIR, are clear indicators that the investigation is not being conducted in a fair and transparent manner.

34. Final Decision
The appeal is disposed of with the following directions:

1. The investigation of FIR No. 341 of 2024 is transferred forthwith to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
2. The CBI shall register an RC, conduct a fair and expeditious investigation, and arrest the responsible police officials within one month. The investigation must be concluded within 90 days of the arrest.
3. Liberty is granted to the eyewitness, Gangaram Pardhi, to directly move the High Court for bail in all cases he has been implicated in after the incident.
4. The State of Madhya Pradesh is directed to provide safety and security to Gangaram Pardhi under the witness protection scheme, both in prison and after his release.

35. Legal Jargons and Maxims

1. Custodial Death: The death of a person while they are in the custody of the police or any other law enforcement agency.
2. Third-Degree Treatment: The use of brutal and illegal methods of torture by police to extract a confession or information from a suspect.
3. Nemo judex in causa sua: A Latin maxim meaning “no one should be a judge in his own cause.” It is a fundamental principle of natural justice that requires impartiality in any proceeding.
4. Per Contra: A Latin term meaning “on the other hand,” used to introduce an opposing argument.

36. Exhibits
NA

VI. Key Learnings for Law Students and Legal Professionals

37. Key Learnings
This judgment offers several important lessons for students and professionals, particularly in criminal and constitutional law:

1. The Imperative of an Impartial Investigation: The most important finding is the Court’s strong affirmation that an investigation loses all credibility when the investigators are themselves the accused. This case serves as a powerful precedent for seeking the transfer of an investigation to an independent agency like the CBI whenever there is a clear conflict of interest, especially in cases of police brutality or custodial violence.
2. The Principle of Nemo Judex in Causa Sua: The judgment provides a classic and practical application of this fundamental principle of natural justice. It teaches that the rule against bias is not just a procedural formality but a cornerstone of a fair justice system. Law students can see how this maxim is invoked to prevent an agency from investigating itself.
3. Protecting Eyewitnesses from Intimidation: The Court’s handling of the plight of the sole eyewitness is a crucial lesson in the importance of witness protection. The judgment recognizes that implicating a key witness in multiple false cases is a common tactic to derail a prosecution. It shows that higher courts can and should intervene to protect witnesses and ensure they can testify without fear.
4. Judicial Scrutiny of Police Inaction: The judgment demonstrates how courts can draw adverse inferences from the conduct of the investigating agency. The failure to make any arrests, the omission of serious charges from the FIR, and the pressure on the medical board were all seen as clear signs of a biased and unfair investigation. This teaches legal professionals how to build a case for transfer based on the actions (or inactions) of the police.
5. The Role of the Supreme Court as a Guardian of Justice: This case highlights the role of the Supreme Court as the ultimate protector of justice. By stepping in where the High Court had hesitated, the Court not only ensured a fair investigation but also took steps to protect a vulnerable witness, reinforcing public faith in the judiciary as a last resort against institutional abuse.

Important Keywords for Hansura Bai & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Judgment

Custodial Death Investigation, CBI Probe Supreme Court, Transfer of Investigation, Witness Protection Scheme, Police Brutality Case, Nemo Judex in Causa Sua, Fair and Impartial Investigation, Hansura Bai vs State of Madhya Pradesh, Article 136 Jurisdiction, Criminal Justice System Reform