State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamsunder Trivedi And Ors. (1995)

1. Should the acquittals be overturned in light of medical and documentary evidence?
2. How should courts assess proof in custodial death cases where direct ocular evidence is unlikely?

• Ground Realities Rule: In custody cases, strict insistence on direct eyewitnesses can cause injustice; courts should weigh medical, circumstantial, and conduct evidence together.
• IPC Framework: When intent to kill is not proved but knowledge of likely death exists, Section 304 Part II applies; joint action triggers Section 34.
• Screening & Illegal Detention: Destroying or concealing evidence attracts Section 201 IPC; wrongful confinement attracts Section 342 IPC.
• Policy Context: National Police Commission flagged torture as dehumanizing; Law Commission (113th) suggested presumptions against police in custody injuries.

• 13 Oct 1981: Victim Nathu brought to Rampura police station for interrogation.
• Beating in custody alleged against SI Shyam Sunder Tiwari (R1) and others.
• Nathu died in custody; body was treated as “unclaimed”.
• Public protests and a written complaint led to inquiry and post-mortem.
• Multiple IPC charges framed; trial court acquitted all respondents.
• High Court upheld most acquittals; convicted R1 under Sections 218, 201, 342 IPC.
• R1’s SLP vs conviction dismissed; State’s SLP sought broader convictions.

Appeal partly allowed. The Supreme Court found custodial homicide proved on the record.

• R1 (SI Shyam Sunder Tiwari): Convicted under Sec 304 Part II/34 IPC; fabrication and wrongful confinement upheld under relevant sections.
• R3–R5: Convicted under Sec 304 Part II/34, and for Sec 201 (screening) and Sec 342 (wrongful confinement).
• R2: Discharged for lack of firm proof of presence.

The Court emphasized sensitivity in such cases: over-strict demands for direct proof can cause miscarriage of justice.

• Courts must account for ground realities in custody: direct eyewitnesses are rare; look at the whole mosaic—medical, circumstantial, and conduct evidence.
• Where intent to kill is not proved, but knowledge of likely fatal harm exists, Sec 304 Part II applies; group liability via Sec 34.
• Concealment/removal of the body to screen offenders attracts Sec 201; unlawful custody engages Sec 342.

The judgment is a strong message against police torture. It protects dignity, guides evidence assessment in custody cases, and supports accountability when officers try to screen the offence.

• No rigid insistence on direct eyewitnesses in custodial deaths.
• Convictions can rest on medical + circumstantial + conduct evidence read together.
• Sec 304 Part II/34 fits when knowledge, not intent, is proved.
• Removal/cover-up invites Sec 201; illegal detention attracts Sec 342.

Mnemonic: “In Custody, Look Closely.”

1. Look at the whole picture (medical + conduct).
2. Closely weigh ground realities (few eyewitnesses).
3. Fix liability: 304 Part II/34 + 201 + 342 where due.

Issue: Whether acquittals should be reversed in a custodial death case.

Rule: Consider ground realities; use medical, circumstantial, and conduct evidence; apply IPC provisions appropriately.

Application: Homicidal death proved; custody and participation established; removal to screen offence shown.

Conclusion: Convict R1 and R3–R5 under 304 Part II/34 (plus 201, 342 as applicable); discharge R2.

Custodial Violence

Illegal force or abuse by police while a person is in custody.

Section 304 Part II

Culpable homicide without intention to cause death but with knowledge of likely death.

Section 201

Causing disappearance of evidence or screening the offender.

Section 342

Wrongful confinement.