Mumbai, April 7 The Bombay High Court has upheld a trial court's order to frame murder charges against eight police personnel in connection with the alleged custodial death of Agnello Valdaris in 2014.
A bench of Justices A S Gadkari and Shyam Chandak, in an order passed on Monday, said the circumstances surrounding Valdaris's death warranted a full trial.
The court also remarked that there was a "serious controversy" over whether his death was homicidal or accidental.
The court dismissed the petitions filed by the eight police personnel challenging a September 2022 order of the trial court ordering framing of charges against them under sections 302 (murder) and 295-A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
"The deceased cannot cry out for justice. It is the duty of the living to do so for them," the HC quoted author Lois McMaster Bujold, noting that it emphasizes the moral obligation of the living to seek justice, accountability, and respect for those who have passed away.
The petitioners – senior police inspector Jitendra Rathod, assistant police inspector Archana Pujari, police sub inspector Shatrugan Tondse, head constable Suresh Mane, and constables Tushar Khairnar, Ravindra Mane, Vikas Suryawanshi and Satyajit Kamble – had claimed that Valdaris died after being hit by a train when he allegedly escaped from custody.
Valdaris and three others were detained by the Wadala railway police in connection with a robbery case.
While the police claim Valdaris died while he tried to escape custody, the high court in its order noted that statements of co-detainees and medical evidence indicated custodial torture.
The HC said the detainees, including Valdaris, were allegedly detained illegally, assaulted, and subjected to abuse in the lock-up.
"The sexual abuse was so disgusting that one would not be able to imagine that such an incident may occur in a police station. Considering the central issue, we do not deem it proper to mention that abuse herein to protect the police image in general," the HC said.
The court also pointed to inconsistencies in police records, non-preservation of CCTV footage despite court directions, and failure to follow medical advice, including not conducting a recommended X-ray examination.
The court concluded that the trial judge had applied the correct legal test and that the material on record, if unrebutted, could lead to conviction. It upheld the earlier order directing framing of charges.