“Custodial Torture that shocks the Conscience”: Supreme Court orders CBI probe, arrests, and ₹50 Lakh compensation for custodial torture of J&K constable SC slams Kupwara JIC for torturing a serving constable—calling it one of the gravest violations of human dignity under Article 21
22, Jul 2025 | CJP Team
In a damning indictment of state abuse and institutional failure, the Supreme Court of India on Monday ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over the investigation into the illegal detention and brutal custodial torture of a serving police constable, Khursheed Ahmad Chohan, at the Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC), Kupwara, Jammu & Kashmir. As crucial, in recognition of the brutality of the violations inflicted, reparation was also ordered. The Court also awarded ₹50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) as compensation to the appellant, holding it to be a necessary constitutional remedy in light of the established violation of Article 21.
The Supreme Court not only quashed a retaliatory FIR filed against the victim under Section 309 IPC for “attempt to suicide” but directed the immediate arrest of the officers involved and ordered the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir to pay ₹50 lakh as constitutional compensation, recoverable from the guilty officers following departmental proceedings. The CBI has also been tasked with investigating systemic failures and institutional impunity at the JIC.
“The unprecedented gravity of this case involving brutal and inhuman custodial torture, characterised by the complete mutilation of the appellant’s genitalia, represents one of the most barbaric instances of police atrocity which the State is trying to defend and cover up with all pervasive power. The medical evidence conclusively establishes that such injuries are impossible to be self-inflicted. The respondent’s theory of suicide attempt crumbles under scrutiny when examined against the timeline and the medical evidence.” (Para 19)
Delivering the judgment, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta described the case as one involving “unprecedented gravity”, with complete mutilation of genitalia, pepper powder and electric shocks on private parts, and injuries consistent with custodial torture techniques such as falanga, the presence of multiple vegetative particles in the rectum, and anal insertion. The Court found the state’s claim of attempted suicide “medically impossible”, rejecting it as a fabricated counter-narrative aimed at shielding perpetrators.
“More significantly, the respondent’s suicide theory is demolished when assessed in light of the medical evidence, which decisively rules out the theory of the harm being self-inflicted. The complete surgical removal of both testicles, the extensive injuries to the appellant’s palms and soles, consistent with custodial torture techniques such as falanga, the presence of multiple vegetative particles in the rectum, and bruising on the buttocks extending to the thighs all points to a pattern of sustained and systematic torture. These injuries are medically impossible to be self-inflicted, particularly in the absence of fatal haemorrhage or loss of consciousness, as would have occurred had the mutilation been self-administered. The respondent’s reliance on superficial cuts to the forearm as indicative of a suicide attempt pales in comparison to the magnitude and nature of the injuries sustained.” (Para 20)
The Case: A signal, a summons, a six-day ordeal
The appellant, Khursheed Ahmad Chohan, a police constable posted in Baramulla, received a signal on February 17, 2023 from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kupwara, instructing him to report to the SSP Kupwara for an enquiry into a narcotics matter. On February 20, he complied and reported to the Joint Interrogation Centre. What followed, according to the Supreme Court, was six days of illegal detention and “barbaric, medically irrefutable torture.”
What followed, the Court held, was “systematic, brutal, and medically irrefutable torture.” According to medical records from SKIMS, Srinagar, where Chohan was eventually shifted in critical condition:
- Genital mutilation: His testicles were amputated and brought in a plastic bag by a Sub-Inspector to the Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS), where he was admitted in a critical condition on February 26.
- Other injuries: A 10 X 5 centimetres scrotal laceration, bruises on the buttocks, fractures, tenderness in palms and soles, and vegetative particles in his rectum were documented.
- Surgery: The SKIMS discharge summary confirmed surgical procedures for reconstruction and repair of the urethra and scrotal wounds.
FIR Against Victim, Not Perpetrators: A legal travesty
On the same day Chohan was admitted to hospital, the police lodged FIR No. 32/2023 under Section 309 IPC, accusing him of “attempting suicide by cutting his vein with a razor blade under a blanket” at the JIC barracks.
The Supreme Court categorically rejected this FIR as a “calculated fabrication”, noting that:
- The FIR contradicted medical records, which established injuries that were far more severe and inaccessible for self-infliction.
- The forensic and CCTV evidence, used by the state to allege suicide, was dismissed as inadequate to override the weight of medical evidence showing extreme torture.
- The FIR was a “pre-emptive defence mechanism”, constituting abuse of process, falling squarely within grounds for quashing as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
“In the present case, the authorities, instead of registering the complaint of the appellant regarding custodial torture, filed a counter FIR against him under Section 309 of the IPC. Perusal of the contents of FIR (supra) reflect that the allegations made therein are vague and manifestly contradictory to the established medical evidence. The FIR states that the appellant tried to cut his vein with a blade, however, the medical records, above discussed, reveal that the injuries are much graver and more extensive than what is depicted in this manifestly fabricated narrative. The stark disparity between the trivial description of ‘cutting his vein’ in the FIR and the barbaric reality of complete castration and systematic torture exposes the mala fide intent behind registering this counter FIR.” (Para 31)
Judicial Rebuke to the High Court and police machinery
The Court was equally scathing of the J&K High Court’s failure to grant relief when Chohan’s wife, Rubina Aktar, moved a writ petition seeking registration of FIR and CBI investigation, and a miscellaneous petition to quash the suicide FIR.
The High Court had:
- Directed a preliminary enquiry to be conducted by the same SSP who summoned Chohan and whose subordinates were the accused—an act the Supreme Court termed a “flagrant violation of natural justice”.
- Refused to quash the suicide FIR or refer the matter to CBI, holding that the investigation was in its infancy—a finding reversed by the apex court.
The Supreme Court held that Lalita Kumari v. State of UP (2014) mandates immediate registration of FIR where allegations disclose cognizable offences, and that no preliminary enquiry is permitted in custodial violence cases. The Court found that the High Court erred in law and failed to protect the victim’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.
“The High Court committed a grave error in law by failing to exercise the writ jurisdiction and in refusing to apply the mandatory principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari (supra). Instead of ordering immediate registration of FIR, the High Court directed the very same Senior Superintendent of Police, Kupwara who had issued the Signal dated 17th February, 2023 summoning the appellant and under whose jurisdiction the alleged torture occurred, to conduct an inquiry into his own subordinates’ actions. This direction constitutes a flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice encapsulated in the Latin maxim “nemo judex in causa sua” (no one should be a judge in his own cause). The High Court’s approach, by treating this as a case requiring a preliminary inquiry rather than immediate registration of FIR, demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the settled legal position and has resulted in the denial of justice to the appellant who is the victim of custodial torture.” (Part 14)
Institutional complicity and systemic failure at JIC Kupwara
Taking a constitutional view of state accountability, the Court directed that the CBI shall not only investigate the individual acts of torture but also examine “systemic issues” at the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara.
“Considering the unprecedented gravity of this custodial torture case, the systematic cover-up orchestrated by local police machinery, the institutional bias demonstrated in the handling of the complaint, and the complete failure of local authorities to conduct a fair investigation and the unrelenting stand taken by the respondent State, we are constrained to direct transfer of investigation to the CBI.” (Para 27)
“The majesty of law demands nothing less than complete independence and impartiality in investigating crimes that shock the conscience of society and violate the most fundamental principles of human dignity enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the transfer of investigation to the CBI becomes not merely advisable but constitutionally imperative to ensure justice and uphold the rule of law.” (Para 27)
The CBI has been directed to:
- Register a Regular Case (RC) based on the March 1, 2023 complaint filed by the victim’s wife and the medical evidence on record. The RC is to be registered within 7 days of this order.
- Take over all existing documents, medical records, CCTV footage, forensic evidence, and case diary.
- The CBI is to also conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the systemic issues at the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara, including examination of all CCTV systems, interrogation from all personnel present during the relevant period, forensic examination of the premises, and review of all protocols and procedures followed for detention and interrogation of suspects.
- FIR No. 32 of 2023, registered against the appellant under Section 309 of the IPC at Police Station Kupwara, to be quashed for being prima facie fabricated.
- Submit a status report to the Supreme Court by November 10, 2025.
Compensation as Constitutional Remedy: ₹50 lakh awarded
The Court awarded ₹50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) as compensation to the appellant, holding it to be a necessary constitutional remedy in light of the established violation of Article 21.
“A sequel to the above discussion and in order to provide some solace to the victim and his family for the barbaric acts of custodial torture leading to complete castration, we hereby direct the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir to pay compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) to the appellant (victim). The said amount shall be recoverable from the officer(s) concerned against whom a departmental proceeding shall be initiated upon conclusion of the investigation by the CBI.” (Para 38 (V))
Citing D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the Court reiterated that:
“Before we conclude, we deem it necessary to address the question of compensation to the appellant, who is a victim of brutal and inhuman custodial torture. It is now well-settled in Indian constitutional jurisprudence that where fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are violated by State machinery, appropriate monetary compensation may be an effective remedy. In D.K. Basu (supra), this Court held that pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and effective remedy for the infringement of fundamental rights caused by State officials and that the defence of sovereign immunity is inapplicable. The Court noted that such compensation must focus on the compensatory element and serve as a balm to the victim, without prejudice to other remedies in civil or criminal law.” (Para 34)
The amount is recoverable from the officers found guilty, following completion of the CBI investigation and departmental proceedings. Notable, the compensation is without prejudice to Chohan’s right to pursue additional remedies.
Closing Words: Upholding the rule of law amid torture and power
In conclusion, the Court invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142, describing the case as a “gross abuse of state power” requiring independent, credible, and constitutionally driven accountability.
“Only investigation by an independent agency, i.e., CBI can restore public faith in the criminal justice system, ensure that this dehumanising crime does not go unpunished, and guarantee that the truth emerges without any institutional bias or cover-up attempts.” (Para 27)
The judgment sets a new precedent not just in affirming constitutional remedies for custodial violence, but also in highlighting the institutional duty of courts to intervene decisively where the state uses its apparatus to silence and punish those it has already harmed.
The complete judgment may be read below.
Related:
She Set Herself on Fire to Be Heard: Odisha student’s death is a wake-up call
Custodial Horror in Sivagangai: Ajith Kumar’s death raises chilling parallels with Sathankulam
