Kochi- The Kerala High Court has set aside the discharge of four police officers accused of brutally torturing a woman at a police station in 2006, holding that custodial violence cannot be shielded under the guise of “official duty.” The court directed the Sessions Court to frame charges against the accused and proceed with the trial, emphasizing that police excesses erode public trust in the justice system.

The case stems from a private complaint filed by Sudha, a housemaid belonging to the Thandan (SC) community, alleging that she was falsely accused of theft by her employers (accused 1–4) and subjected to custodial torture by police officers (accused 5–9) at Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. According to her complaint, on 20 July 2006, she was illegally confined, beaten with sticks, stamped on her abdomen, and dragged across the floor for hours, leaving her severely injured. She was later hospitalized, and medical reports corroborated her injuries.

Though a separate police case was registered (Crime No. 519/2006), it was later referred as “false.” Sudha then approached the Chief Minister and later filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, which was committed to the Sessions Court. However, in 2017, the Sessions Court discharged all accused, including the police officers, citing lack of prima facie evidence and granting protection under Section 197(2) CrPC (sanction requirement for prosecuting public servants).

High Court’s Key Observations

Justice Kauser Edappagath, in a strongly worded judgment, overturned the discharge of the police officers (accused 5–8), holding:

Custodial Torture is Beyond Official Duty

The court rejected the argument that the accused police officers were entitled to protection under Section 197 CrPC, stating:
“The custodial assault as alleged by the petitioner… can never be justified under the shelter of performance of official duty. There is no reasonable connection between custodial violence and official duty.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2016) and P.P. Unnikrishnan v. Puttiyottil Alikutty (2000), the court held that Section 197 does not apply to acts “manifestly outside official functions,” such as torture.

Police Brutality Shakes Public Trust

The judgment condemned custodial torture as a “serious threat to a civilized society” and warned:
“Unless stern measures are taken to check this malady, the foundations of the criminal justice system would be shaken. The common man may lose faith in the judiciary itself.”
Referring to D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the court reiterated that Article 21 (right to life) prohibits torture and inhuman treatment.

No Sanction Needed for Criminal Acts

The court clarified that Section 197 CrPC applies only when there is a “reasonable nexus” between the act and official duty, not for “abuse of power” or “criminal activities”

The Kerala High Court’s ruling in Sudha v. State of Kerala & Others (2025) is a landmark decision that reinforces the judiciary’s stance against custodial torture and police brutality, denying protection under Section 197 CrPC for acts outside official duties.

Below are case briefs of similar instances in India where police officers were denied protection under Section 197 CrPC or punished for brutality, presented in running paragraphs to provide context and highlight judicial trends.

Similar Cases in India

In S. Shivkumar v. State of Karnataka (2021), the Karnataka High Court rejected a plea by seven police officers to quash proceedings against them for illegal detention and custodial torture, ruling that such acts were not protected under Section 197 CrPC. The case arose when the complainant and his son were summoned to a police station in Chikballapur for questioning in a gold-snatching case. At the station, they were allegedly abused and assaulted by the officers, leading to a complaint filed with the Principal District and Sessions Judge. The officers sought protection under Section 197 CrPC, arguing that their actions were part of their official duties and required government sanction for prosecution. The court, presided over by Justice H.P. Sandesh, held that illegal detention and custodial violence were “not permitted by law” and lacked any connection to official duties. Citing the departmental inquiry’s findings of excessive power, the court dismissed the petition, allowing the trial to proceed under Sections 167, 330, 342, 348, and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC. This case emphasized that acts of torture are criminal and cannot be shielded by statutory protections meant for lawful duties.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay (2024) further clarified that police officers accused of lodging false cases or fabricating evidence cannot claim immunity under Section 197 CrPC. The case involved police officials in Madhya Pradesh who were accused of creating false alibi documents to shield murder case suspects. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had quashed the case against the officers, citing the lack of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC. However, the Supreme Court, in a bench led by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, overturned this decision, holding that fabricating evidence or filing bogus cases is not part of a police officer’s official duties. The court reasoned that allowing such acts to be protected under Section 197 CrPC would enable officers to misuse their authority as a “facade for illegal acts.” The judgment restored the criminal proceedings, emphasizing that acts like criminal conspiracy or evidence tampering fall outside the scope of official functions and do not require government sanction for prosecution.

In D. Rajagopal v. Ayyappan & Anr. (2021), the Kerala High Court upheld the conviction of police officers for custodial assault, denying them protection under Section 197 CrPC. The case originated from a complaint by a man detained at Ezhukone Police Station, who alleged brutal assault by officers, including cigarette burns on his tongue, rendering him unable to speak when produced before a magistrate. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kottarakara, convicted the officers under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and the appellate court confirmed the verdict. The officers challenged the conviction, arguing that prosecution required government sanction under Section 197 CrPC as they were acting in their official capacity. The High Court, presided over by Justice Mary Joseph, rejected this claim, stating that the sanction was not intended to protect “illegal acts” like custodial violence. The court held that such acts were unrelated to official duties and violated the legal limits of police authority, dismissing the revision petitions and affirming the convictions.