In India, cases of custodial violence often face hurdles because the police (often called the ‘khaki fraternity’) may protect their own. Justice depends on the Judiciary (Courts) taking a proactive role, independent investigations (like by the CBI), and clear scientific evidence that cannot be tampered with.

In June 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, P. Jayaraj and his son J. Benicks were arrested for allegedly keeping their shop open past lockdown hours. While in the Sattankulam police station, they were brutally assaulted, leading to their deaths in a hospital a few days later. This incident triggered massive global outrage against police brutality.

In the early days of the Sattankulam case, it was alleged that police personnel cleaned bloodstains at the station to destroy evidence. The Madras High Court directed the CBI to take over the case to ensure an impartial probe. The CBI used advanced forensics to recover ‘deleted’ or cleaned evidence, which proved crucial for the conviction.

Special Sub-Inspector Pauldurai was the tenth person accused in the Sattankulam custodial death case. He passed away in August 2020 while in judicial custody at a hospital in Madurai after contracting COVID-19. Because of his death, the charges against him were abated, and the trial continued for the other nine.

In India, the death penalty is reserved for the ‘rarest of rare’ cases. While the modern legal trend favors life imprisonment to allow for reformation (rehabilitative justice), brutal crimes like custodial murder are sometimes met with the death penalty (retributive justice) to uphold public confidence in the rule of law.

Many custodial deaths in India go unnoticed or are labeled as natural deaths. In the Sattankulam case, the gruesome details (including the nature of injuries) leaked to the public, leading to massive protests across Tamil Nadu. This public pressure compelled the state government to quickly hand over the case to the CBI, preventing a typical ‘cover-up’.

The police initially claimed Jayaraj kept his shop open past 8:00 PM and behaved rudely. However, eyewitnesses and CCTV evidence later clarified that the shop was closed well on time. This highlighted how the police often use ‘disobedience’ laws (like Section 188 of the IPC) as a pretext to harass citizens.

The CBI charge sheet detailed the horrific nature of the torture Jayaraj and Benicks faced. Forcing victims to clean their own blood is a tactic used to humiliate and dehumanize them. Such acts are violations of the ‘Standard Operating Procedures’ (SOP) of police conduct and basic human rights protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Revathy, a woman head constable at the Sattankulam station, became the star witness. She told the Judicial Magistrate that there were bloodstains on the walls and tables of the station and that the victims were beaten until nearly 2:00 AM. Her bravery is notable because ‘the blue wall of silence’ (police protecting their own) is rarely broken in India.

The term ‘systemic reckoning’ implies that the entire police hierarchy and the state’s oversight mechanisms are being held accountable. This verdict is a rare instance where an entire group of officials was convicted, sending a message that ‘the long arm of the law’ eventually catches up with those who abuse their power, regardless of their status.