Systemic reckoning: On the verdict in the Sattankulam murder case

Delivery of justice to hapless victims of police brutality requires a combination of an actively engaged judiciary, the courage of victims and witnesses to speak out against the khaki fraternity, and a determined investigation to assemble irrefutable evidence. All these factors perfectly aligned to uncover the truth behind the custodial killing of an innocent trader, Jayaraj, and his son Benicks, who were tortured at the Sattankulam police station in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu, six years ago. Relying on the CBI’s scientific evidence, despite early attempts to destroy it, a trial court in Madurai has now convicted all nine policemen arraigned in the case. A tenth accused had died earlier of COVID-19. While the awarding of the death penalty to the convicts militates against the principle of rehabilitative justice, the conviction sends a strong message to those in uniform who assume the power to wield force against unarmed citizens as if it were a statutory right. This case might have passed off as yet another suspicious custodial death but for overwhelming evidence of torture and public outrage. The police picked up Jayaraj on false charges of violating lockdown conditions during the pandemic, and Benicks was detained later when he confronted them for assaulting his father. The two men were stripped, brutally beaten overnight, and even forced to clean their own blood with their clothes. After registering an FIR on trumped-up charges, the injured men were produced before a government doctor, who dubiously issued a “fit for remand” report. The jurisdictional magistrate too mechanically remanded them to judicial custody, ultimately leading to their deaths.

That the policemen felt entitled was evident when a Judicial Magistrate found the atmosphere at the station hostile and “intimidating”. Justices P.N. Prakash and B. Pugalendhi of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, having taken suo motu cognisance, in an extraordinary direction, asked revenue officials to take control of the station to safeguard evidence. The turning point came when a head constable, Revathi, testified against her colleagues. The CBI established that blood samples recovered from the station matched the victims’ DNA, while call data records confirmed the presence of both the victims and the accused at the time of the crime, sealing the case. The trial court appears to have applied uniform proportionality in assigning culpability to all accused. This may not withstand scrutiny in higher courts, as seen in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, where the Supreme Court, in 1999, upheld the death sentences of only four of the 26 convicted by the TADA court. Nonetheless, the convictions should help sensitise the police force that excesses will not go unpunished.