Custodial death of P Jayaraj and Bennicks

On 19 June 2020, P. Jeyaraj (59 years old) and his son J. Beniks (also spelled Fennix, Bennix) (31 years old) were picked up for inquiry by the Tamil Nadu Police in Sathankulam, Thoothukudi district for allegedly violating the Indian government's COVID-19 lockdown rules. According to the police, the duo was held for allegedly keeping their mobile accessories shop open beyond permissible hours on June 19. An FIR was filed against the two on 19 June and both were taken into custody. However CBI in chargesheet claimed there were no violation of the lockdown rules.[3] they were sexually assaulted and tortured by the police while in custody, leading to their deaths. On 22 June 2020, Beniks fell ill and was moved to the Kovilpatti General Hospital, where he died later that day. The following day, 22 June 2020, his father also died. The custodial death of the two men in Tamil Nadu's Sathankulam town in Thoothukudi district sparked massive outrage in the state over police brutality.[4][5]

Custodial death of P. Jeyaraj and J. Benicks
DateJune 19–23, 2020 (2020-06-19 – 2020-06-23)
Time7:45 PM IST, UTC+05:30
LocationSathankulam, Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu, India.
DeathsP. Jayaraj (age 59)
J. Benicks (age 31)
InquestThree doctors conducted post-mortem in the presence of the judicial magistrate. The entire procedure was video-recorded.
ArrestsSreedhar
Balakrishnan
Raghu Ganesh.
Murugan
Muthu Raja
SamaJiu
Chelladurai
Thomas Francis
Veilumuthu
Pauldurai
TrialStarted on 18th February 2021[1]
ConvictionsIn the court of :Principal District and Sessions Judge

CNR Number :TNMD010095032020

Case Number :SC/0000470/2020
Reason for arrestWrong confinement of Lockdown Violation[2]

Timeline of events

On 19 June 2020, according to multiple eyewitnesses, the Sathankulam police had picked up on Jeyaraj and taken him to the police station to conduct an inquiry about an argument that had allegedly taken place between the police and a few others near Jeyaraj's wood workshop the previous day.


  • On 19 June 2020, around 7:30 pm, Beniks was in his shop near the Kamarajar statue in Sathankulam town when his friend rushed to him with the news that his father Jeyaraj had been picked up by the police. Worried about his father, Beniks and the friend rushed to the Sathankulam police station. Beniks was called in by the police while he was waiting outside. When he went in to question why his father had been taken to the station, he was allegedly assaulted. Soon, friends of Beniks, who are lawyers, gathered outside the police station. According to Beniks's friends, they heard the police shout " How you dare speak against the police". Eyewitness say that violence inside the police station escalated when Sub-Inspector Raghu Ganesh arrived. Police volunteers present inside the station also allegedly started assaulting the duo. Lawyers were not allowed to meet Beniks or his father until 20 June.[6][7]
  • On 20 June 2020, according to the duo's lawyer Maniraman, they had to change as many as six lungis due to the profuse bleeding from their rectums. The police took Jeyaraj and Beniks to Kovilpatti Hospital for medical fitness testing. The medical fitness certificate was provided by Doctor Vennila. After that, they were taken to Sathankulam Magistrate D Saravanan, who remanded the injured duo in custody without examining their physical condition. D.Saravanan came out and stood at the balcony of his house when the team of police were standing around Jayaraj and Beniks at the entrance. Without following the protocol to examine, D.Saravanan waved his hands to the police to take them away. D.Saravanan was complacent in his duty and took the side of the police in a casual way.[8]
  • On 22 June 2020, while Beniks was undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Kovilpatti, he died at 9:00 pm, due to heavy internal bleeding. P. Jeyaraj was admitted at Government Hospital, Kovilpatti by the authorities of Sub Jail, Kovilpatti on the same day at 10:30 pm.[9]
  • On 23 June 2020, at 5:40 am, P. Jeyaraj died due to a punctured lung while undergoing treatment.[10]

High Court and Human Rights Commission

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court took suo motu cognizance of the matter and on 24 June, a bench consisting of Justices P.N. Prakash and B. Pugalendhi ordered the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi, to inquire into the incident and submit a status report.[11] An order was given to videograph the autopsy, which the court ordered to be done by a panel of three experts in the presence of a magistrate[12] after the police completed its inquest proceedings. Copies of both reports of the autopsy and inquest were submitted to the high court. State Human Rights Commission Tamil Nadu has taken suo motu cognizance of the offence and asked the Police Department to file a reply in this regard.[13]

Judicial inquiry

During the pendency of the autopsy inquiry, Magistrate M S Bharathidasan submitted a report to the High Court describing rude behaviour by Constable Maharajan at the Sathankulam police station. In the report, the Magistrate said Constable Maharajan made a “very disparaging remark” against him in the presence of D Kumar, Additional Superintendent of Police and C Prathapan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, even as policemen at the station recorded the videos of the proceeding.[14]

Following the complaint, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court began a suo motu contempt of court proceeding and ordered the Inspector General of Police for the South Zone to take action against the officers. The Inspector General suspended Maharajan; D Kumar, ADSP, and C Prathapan, DSP was moved to a waiting list. The High Court also directed the Thoothukudi district collector to depute revenue officials and take control of the police station to enable the magistrate to collect the necessary documents. This incident represents the first time in the history of Indian Police that a district administration had seized control of a police station. The judges further directed the Additional Director of Forensic Sciences department to send a team of experts to collect materials from the station.[15]

Reaction on social media

” Reeling from what I'm hearing. Absolutely stunned, sad, and angry. No human being deserves such brutality, whatever be their crime. The guilty must not be allowed to go unpunished. We need facts. I cannot even begin to imagine what the family must be going through. Sending strength and prayers. We need to use our collective voices to seek #JusticeForJayarajandBennicks”

— Priyanka Chopra wrote on Twitter [16]

Celebrities, politicians, and several notable people used social media to reveal the details of the attack and condemn the police action. Hundreds of thousands of tweets were sent out using the hashtag "#JusticeforJayarajandBennix", which was among the top Twitter topics trending in India on 26 June 2020 and among the top 30 trending globally.[17][18] Celebrities, including Ravichandran Ashwin, Shikhar Dhawan, Suchitra, Siddharth, Khushbu, Jayam Ravi, Karthik Subbaraj, D. Imman, Suriya used the hashtag.[19][20] Jignesh Mevani, a social activist and lawyer from Gujarat in western India, wrote on Twitter that "The George Floyd of India are far too many". [21][22] Film director Hari issued a statement condemning police brutality and expressing regret for glorifying policemen in five of his films.[23][24]

Official response

” What has happened in Tamil Nadu’s Thoothukudi district is worse than the Nirbhaya case for which four persons involved were hanged early this year. ”

— Retired Judge of Supreme Court of India Markandey Katju wrote on The Week [25]

The Police Department had suspended two sub inspectors and an inspector. The entire team in the Sathankulam police station, including those in other ranks, have been transferred to other locations.[26][27][28] Kanimozhi, Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha for the Thoothukudi Constituency said the incident was a collective failure of police and other officials and a gross violation of human rights.[29][30] On 28 June, The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi K Palaniswami has directed the probe into the deaths be handed over to the CBI.[31][32]

CBI Investigation

Central Bureau of Investigation had registered two cases on 7 July 2020 related to the allegations of custodial death. On the request of Tamil Nadu Government & further notification from Govt of India, and taken over the investigation of both the cases, earlier registered vide Crime no. 649 & 650 at Police Station Kovilpatti. A CBI team camped continuously at Madurai and worked in the case during COVID-19 pandemic. During the investigation 10 police officials including Inspector/SHO, 3 Sub inspector, 2 HC, 4 Constables, all of Sathankulam Police Station were arrested. The CBI had filed a chargesheet on 26.09.2020 against all arrested police officials U/s 120-B of IPC r/w sections 302, 342, 201, 182, 193, 211, 218 & 34 & substantive offences. One more accused, Sub Inspector Palthurai died during investigation due to COVID-19. [33][34]

According to the CBI chargesheet, the post-mortem report established that the police officers brutally tortured Jeyaraj and Beniks, and “had inflicted several injuries knowing well that they would die of such injuries.”[35] The CBI report titled "Results of Laboratory Analysis," states that the DNA samples collected from the walls of the Sathankulam lockup, toilet, room of SHO and from the lathis were a match to the samples of the two victims.[36]

The chargesheet added that both Jeyaraj and Beniks were tortured inside the police station between 7:45 pm on June 9 and 3 am the next day. As per the CBI investigation, they were subjected to several rounds of beatings.[37][38] The chargesheet further said that whenever there was a silence, the inspector used to urge the staff by asking about reasons for silence and thereby instigating them to start fresh rounds of beating. Also clothes were removed to add to the brutality of torture. Process of brutal torture of the Beniks and his father continued for hours together within the closed premises of police station.[39] According to the report, Investigations revealed Jeyaraj was first picked up by Sub-Inspector Balakrishnan, Inspector S Sridhar, Police Constable M. Muthuraja and other officials from Kamarajar Chowk on the evening of 19 June at 7:30 pm and that Beniks, his son, upon hearing Jeyaraj had been arrested enquired the police upon which he was asked to come to the police station.

The charge sheet says, 'Beniks who upon reaching the police station saw his father Jeyaraj being beaten by the accused SI K. Balakrishnan. Beniks objected to that and question the SI about the reason for bringing his father to the police station and subjecting him to torture."

Soon after, an altercation ensued between Beniks and two officers PC M. Muthuraja and SI K. Balakrishnan as he had taken offence to Benik's questioning, and 'In a fit of rage, deceased Beniks was also wrongfully confined inside the police station,' There were 18 injuries found on the body of the deceased during Inquest Proceedings. The injuries so recorded in the Inquest Report include some serious injuries, big in size with peeled skin. Further, Final Post Mortem Report furnished by the team of 03 doctors established that the deceased Beniks died of complications of blunt injuries sustained.'


First Trial started on 17-03-2021

Cr.M.P.No.161/2021 - Hence, this petition is hereby dismissed. Cr.M.P.No.165/2021 - Hence, this petition is hereby dismissed. S.C.No.470/2020 - A1 to A9 produced. The counsel for the 1st accused represented that 2 days time alone given for perusing the documents. The copies for the 1st accused were given on 11.11.2020. In spite of a long duration, the 1st accused has not come forward to engage a counsel. It is the boundened duty of the parties to the case to perform their part of duty in the earliest possible opportunity in spite of lapse of several months after furnishing the copies, the 1st accused has not chosen to engage a counsel. Now the request on the part of the 1st accused to grand more time to peruse the documents in spite of several months under the guise of stating that he has engaged his counsel recently is not sustainable one. The counsel for A2 represented that the charges can not be framed during the pendency of 2 memos filed by the prosecution is pending. The counsel for 3rd accused represented that the copies of some documents have to be furnished and CrMP 161/2021 u/s. 207 CrPC was filed and the same has been dismissed today. CrMP 165/2021 u/s. 227 CrPC for discharging the 3rd accused filed and dismissed. Without going through the copies of all documents, the 3rd defendant could not have filed the petition u/s. 227 CrPC. Therefore the factum of filing the CrMP 165/2021 itself indicates that the 3rd accused has gone through all the particulars in the case. The arguments of accused no.4,5,6 and 8 heard. No representation for Accused no.7 and 9. Therefore it is deemed that the accused no.7 and 9 have also put forth their part of arguments in the case. It is argued that two memos filed by the prosecution wherein permission for further investigation has been sought for. At the time of framing charges it is needless to expect the result of the order that would be passed in those memos. The charges can be framed only on the basis of available materials. The framing of charge can not be postponed for awaiting the documents that would be produced by the prosecution in case of order if any passed on those memos. Hence the memos can be ordered for or against even after framing charges. Therefore the pendency of the memos can never be a bar to frame charges. On perusal of records the accused 1 to 9 have been charge sheeted u/s. 120 B IPC. The criminal conspiracy should have taken place prior taking the deceased persons from their shop. No materials available to frame charge u/s. 120 B IPC. On perusal of records and hearing the prosecution and A2 to 6 and 8. The charges u/s. 342 (2 counts) IPC against A1 to 9, u/s. 201 IPC against A1 to A7 and A9, u/s. 182 IPC against A4, u/s. 193 IPC against A3, u/s. 211 and 218 IPC against A3 and A4, u/s. 302 r/w 34 (2 counts) IPC against A1 to A7 and A9 and u/s. 302 r/w 109 IPC against A8 framed and read over and explained to A1 to A9 and they denied the charges. When questioned A1 to A9 regarding the offences, they pleaded not guilty. Issue summons to L.W.1 - 5 call on 17.03.2021. A1 to A9 Remand Extended till then. Objection for memos by then
Daily Case Details
Case Type : SC - Sessions Case
Filing Number: 6946/2020Filing Date: 21-12-2020
Registration Number: 470/2020Registration Date: 21-12-2020
CNR Number: TNMD01-009503-2020
Under Act(s) Under Section(s)
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 302,342,201,182,193,211,218, 120(B),34
Date Business Next Purpose Next Hearing Date
12-21-2020 Taken on filed. U/s. 302,342,201,182,193,218 r/w 120B and 34 IPC. A.1 to A.9 produced through Video conference. For engaging counsel call on 4.1.2021. Remand extended till then. Appearance 1-4-2021
1-4-2021 A.1 to A.9 produced through Video conference. For engaging counsel by 18.1.2021. Remand extended till then. Accused to be produced before this court on 18.1.2021. Appearance 1-18-2021
1-18-2021 A.1 to A.9 produced through V.C. For engaging counsel by 29.1.2021. Remand extended till then. Accused to be produced before this court on 29.1.2021. Appearance 1-29-2021
1-29-2021 A.1 to A.9 produced. A.10 died. Already charge abated. This case is made over to I Additional District and Sessions Judge, madurai for disposal according to law. Call on 18.2.2021. Appearance 2-18-2021
2-18-2021 A1 to A9 produced. A 10 died. Mr. K. Manikandan filed memo of appearance for A2. Mr. R. Subramaniya Adhityan filed memo of appearance for A3. Mr. M. Manivelpandiyan filed memo of appearance for A6. Mr. S. Sivakumar filed memo of appearance for A9. Memo filed by A3 stating that, transfer petitions 37/2021 before the Honourable Supreme Court admitted by no stay. Memo by way of request filed by CBI for handing over the some material objects. Objection if any by 22.02.2021. Cr.M.P.120/2021 (U/s.197 and 227 Cr.P.C) is pending. For engaging counsel for other accuseds. call on 22.02.2021. A1 to A9 remand extended till then. Appearance 2-22-2021
2-22-2021 Cr.M.P.No.120/2020 in S.C.No.470/2020 - Counter by 01.03.2021. S.C.No.470/2020 - A1 to 9 produced. Mr.G.Mariappan filed memo of appearance of A4. Mr.N.Selvaraj filed memo of appearance for A5. Mr.S.Sivasooriyanarayanan filed memo of appearance for A7. Mr.T.A.Ebenezer filed memo of appearance for A8. Affidavit of A1 filed. Where in A1 stated that he himself is conducting the case without counsel. For Framing charges call on 01.03.2021. Objection filed by A8 and 9. A1 to 9 Remand extended till then Framing of Charges 3-1-2021
3-1-2021 Cr.M.P.No.120/2021 in S.C.No.470/2020 - Oral submission of the P.P.heard. Orders by 08.03.2021. Cr.M.P.No.149/2021 in S.C.No.470/2020 - This petition is filed by the Victim&#039s daughter to assist the prosecution. U/s 301 Cr.P.C. The P.P. has not objected. The accused have got no role to play in this petition. Hence petition allowed. S.C.No.470/2020 - A10 died. A1 to 9 produced. Prosecution case opened. Petition u/s 301 Cr.P.C. filed and allowed. 207 Cr.P.C filed by A3. Objections filed by A4 for the memos filed by the prosecution on 18.02.2021. Cr.M.P.No.120/2021 pending call on 08.03.2021. Remand Extended till then u/s 207 Cr.P.C. Call in Open Court on 08.03.2021. For further Proceedings 3-8-2021
3-8-2021 Cr.M.P.No.120/2021 in S.C.NO.470/2020 - In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed. Cr.M.P.No.161/2021 (U/s 207 Cr.P.C.) - Counter by 10.03.2021. S.C.No.470/2020 - Cr.M.P.No.120/2021 is dismissed. A10 died. A1 to A9 produced. Mr.R.K.Arunjunai filed memo of appearance for A1. Cr.M.P.161/2021 is pending. For framing of charges call on 10.03.2021. A1 to A9 Remand Extended till then Objections for memo by then Framing of Charges 3-10-2021
3-10-2021 Cr.M.P.No.161/2021 - Hence, this petition is hereby dismissed. Cr.M.P.No.165/2021 - Hence, this petition is hereby dismissed. S.C.No.470/2020 - A1 to A9 produced. The counsel for the 1st accused represented that 2 days time alone given for perusing the documents. The copies for the 1st accused were given on 11.11.2020. In spite of a long duration, the 1st accused has not come forward to engage a counsel. It is the boundened duty of the parties to the case to perform their part of duty in the earliest possible opportunity in spite of lapse of several months after furnishing the copies, the 1st accused has not chosen to engage a counsel. Now the request on the part of the 1st accused to grand more time to peruse the documents in spite of several months under the guise of stating that he has engaged his counsel recently is not sustainable one. The counsel for A2 represented that the charges can not be framed during the pendency of 2 memos filed by the prosecution is pending. The counsel for 3rd accused represented that the copies of some documents have to be furnished and CrMP 161/2021 u/s. 207 CrPC was filed and the same has been dismissed today. CrMP 165/2021 u/s. 227 CrPC for discharging the 3rd accused filed and dismissed. Without going through the copies of all documents, the 3rd defendant could not have filed the petition u/s. 227 CrPC. Therefore the factum of filing the CrMP 165/2021 itself indicates that the 3rd accused has gone through all the particulars in the case. The arguments of accused no.4,5,6 and 8 heard. No representation for Accused no.7 and 9. Therefore it is deemed that the accused no.7 and 9 have also put forth their part of arguments in the case. It is argued that two memos filed by the prosecution wherein permission for further investigation has been sought for. At the time of framing charges it is needless to expect the result of the order that would be passed in those memos. The charges can be framed only on the basis of available materials. The framing of charge can not be postponed for awaiting the documents that would be produced by the prosecution in case of order if any passed on those memos. Hence the memos can be ordered for or against even after framing charges. Therefore the pendency of the memos can never be a bar to frame charges. On perusal of records the accused 1 to 9 have been charge sheeted u/s. 120 B IPC. The criminal conspiracy should have taken place prior taking the deceased persons from their shop. No materials available to frame charge u/s. 120 B IPC. On perusal of records and hearing the prosecution and A2 to 6 and 8. The charges u/s. 342 (2 counts) IPC against A1 to 9, u/s. 201 IPC against A1 to A7 and A9, u/s. 182 IPC against A4, u/s. 193 IPC against A3, u/s. 211 and 218 IPC against A3 and A4, u/s. 302 r/w 34 (2 counts) IPC against A1 to A7 and A9 and u/s. 302 r/w 109 IPC against A8 framed and read over and explained to A1 to A9 and they denied the charges. When questioned A1 to A9 regarding the offences, they pleaded not guilty. Issue summons to L.W.1 - 5 call on 17.03.2021. A1 to A9 Remand Extended till then. Objection for memos by then Trial 3-17-2021
17-03-2021 Memo filed by A4 - The objection by way of this memo can be raised only at the time of examination of the witnesses. This memo is totally unnecessary at this stage. Hence memo closed. S.C.NO.470/2020 - A1 to 9 produced through Video Conference. Memo filed by A3&#039s counsel stating that petition u/s 409 Cr.P.C filed before Principal District Court, Madurai. A4 filed additional objection for Memos. A4 filed memo and memo is closed. Petition u/sec 216 Cr.P.C filed Cr.M.P.178/2021 pending arguments on the memos dt.18.02.2021 heard from the prosecutor. A3&#039s counsel requested further time for arguments. Arguments of other Accused heard. In spite of sufficient time A3 has not come forward to argue the memo. Hence it is deemed that A3 argued the memo. Orders in the memo by 24.03.2021. A1 to 9 Remand Extended till then. Crmp 178/ 2021 Counter by 24.3.21 Trial 3-24-2021
3-24-2021 Cr.M.P.No.178/2021 in S.C.No.470/2020 - Counter of A1, A3, A4 and A8 filed. A7 filed memo stating that A7 adopts then counter of A1. A5 and 6 filed memo stating that they are adopting the counter of A3. The Counsel for A2 endorsed that A2 has adopted the counter of A3 and 4. The Counsel for A9 submitted oral objections to this petition. Heard both sides. In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed. S.C.No.470/2020 - A1 to A9 produced on Video Conference. Cr.M.P.No.178/2021 dismissed. Orders passed on memos vide separate sheets. In W.P.3665/2021 it is directed by the Hon&#039ble High Court for disposing the case with in 6 months. Hence issue summons to L.W.1 and 2 call on 31.03.2021. A1 to A9 Remand Extended till then. Trial 3-31-2021
3-31-2021 A1 to A9 produced on Video Conference. A10 died. Witness absent. Memo filed on behalf of A3 stating that Assistant Solicitor General gave undertaking before Honourable High Court that no witness will be produced before this Court till 07.04.2021. But in Public Prosecutor represented that no such undertaking was given. Issue summons to L.W.1 and L.W.2 call on 08.04.2021. A1 to A9 Remand Extended till then. Trial 4-8-2021
4-8-2021 A1 to A9 produced. L.W.2 present and examined as P.W.1. Mr.Public Prosecutor represented that L.W.33 is the Complainant to be examined next. Hence, Issue summons to L.W.33 call on 21.04.2021. Acknowledgement for handing over properties to expert filed along with memo. A1 to A9 Remand Extended till then. Evidence -beulah 4-21-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qyE-VRyjBInNA3DbQW6jJ4QD9yiIxjYH/view?usp=sharing
4-21-2021 A10 died,A1 to A9 produced. L.W. 33 present and examined as PW2 EX.P1 to EX.P13 marked and cross examined by A2 in part.Petition U/s 136 r/w 104 of evidence Act filed by A7 and dismissed. Continuation of cross of PW2 by 22.4.2021. A1 to A9 Remand Extended till then. Evidence-shankar-kovilpatti jail 4-22-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vl2_Ke6HZWOdyYmfo8wcwE52a83DuBdJ/view?usp=sharing
4-22-2021 A1 to A9 produced. PW.2 cross completed by A2 , A3, A5, A6. Ex.P.14 marked. cross by other accused by 23.04.2020. A1 to A9 remanded extend till then. Evidence-shankar-kovilpatti jail 4-23-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j3kzQMekJJN0j03f07x9AuUPkhRaaD8c/view?usp=sharing
4-23-2021 CrMP.No.292/2021 filed by A1 - Petition is dismissed. S.C.470/2020 - A1 to 9 produced. PW 2 cross examined by A1 and A9. charges against A3 and 4 under section 211 and 218 IPC namely the 5th and 6th charges in the original charge have been altered and readover and explained to A3 and A4. A3 and A4 denied the altered charge. Cross of PW2 by A4,7,8 by 27.04.2021. A1 to 9 Remand extended till then. Evidence-shankar-kovilpatti jail 4-27-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O4z048aZDhil5ewBtQ3l6Grxy4d6JBCv/view?usp=sharing
4-27-2021 A1 to A9 produced. A10 died. PW2 present and cross completed. Issue summons to LW9 call 3.6.2021.. A1 to 9 Remand Extended till then. Evidence-shankar-kovilpatti jail 6-3-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W0gUVjT7y5d5WTg-ISLdI5-0sEAPG-2z/view?usp=sharing
6-3-2021 Declared as Lockdown due to Covid-19 from 01-06-2021 as per order of High Court, Madras in R.O.C.No.41440-A/2021/C3 dt.28-05-2021 and as per O.M. of the P.D.J, Madurai in D.No.3241/2021 dt.31-05-2021 adjourned to 16-06-2021. Evidence 6-16-2021
6-16-2021 Declared as Lockdown due to Covid-19 as per order of Hon&#039ble High Court, Madras in R.O.C.No.41440-A/2021/C3 dt.28-05-2021 and as per O.M. of the P.D.J, Madurai in D.No.3241/2021 dt.31-05-2021 adjourned to 02-07-2021. Evidence 7-2-2021
7-2-2021 Accused not produced. Witness not present. It is represented on prosecution through Sessions Clerk to adjourned the case on 15.07.2021. At request adjourned to 15.07.2021. Evidence 7-15-2021
7-15-2021 A1&#039s counsel already filed memo stating that he withdraws the memo of appearance and the same communicated to A1 through Superintendent Central Prison, Madurai. Today A1 to A9 not produced. Today C.B.I. Police present and prayed time for examination of witnesses. At request. Adjourned to 28.07.2021. 3.10 P.M. A1 to A9 produced through Video Conference. A1 represented that he himself conduct the case as party in person. Evidence 7-28-2021
7-28-2021 A1 to A9 produced. Today witness not present. It is represented by the Public Prosecutor that witness summons may be issued to L.W.1 and L.W.3. Learned defence counsel represented that witnesses may be examined one after one since 9 counsel have to cross exam the witness and it would take considered time. At request. Adjourned to 04.08.2021. Issue witness summon to L.W.1. Evidence 8-4-2021
8-4-2021 A1 to A9 produced. L.W.1 examined as P.W.3. P.W.3 cross examined. A1 filed a application to conduct the case by himself and the same is permitted. (Vide separate order). At request on prosecution send summons to L.W.3 for the hearing on 11.08.2021. Evidence-selvarani 8-11-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xel_W9-TQ73IL1NnhEpFAeJSH675UtZY/view?usp=sharing
8-11-2021 A1 to A9 produced. L.W.3 examined as P.W.4. At request on prosecution. Send summons to L.W.7 by 16.08.2021. Evidence-persis 8-16-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bDb3e1bpX1Vz6wIEBHowlQrLDwtfZfOI/view?usp=sharing
8-16-2021 A1 to A9 not produced. Learned Public Prosecutor represented that witness could not attend the court and prayed further time. At request adjourned to 19.08.2021 send letter to jail authority to produce the accused. Evidence 8-19-2021
8-19-2021 A1 to A9 produced LW7 examined as PW5. PW5 cross examined on defence except A7 side. At request PW5 cross on A7 side adjourned to 23.08.2021. Petition u/s 91 Cr.P.C. filed on A7 side and pending. Cr.M.P.No.411/2021 - Counter by. 23.08.2021. Evidence-thansingraja 8-23-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EUNDIx1iFLc8B2k9wtD54pP6pkQoyBGM/view?usp=sharing
8-23-2021 Cr.M.P.No.411/2021 in S.C.No.470/2020 - At request time Extended till then 31.08.2021. S.C.No.470/2020 - A1 to A9 produced.P.W.5 recalled and cross examined on A7 side. At request on prosecution issue summons to L.W.4 for the hearing on 31.08.2021. Cr.M.P is pending. Evidence 8-31-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u2ZPXzLR6PjTAvnvGssiE8IHKo4V9zDY/view?usp=sharing
8-31-2021 Cr.M.P.No.411/2021 in S.C.No.470/2020 - At request. Time Extended till then 04.09.2021. S.C.No.470/2020 - A1 to A9 produced. L.W.4 examined as P.W.6. As per both side representation and convenience next trial dates fixed on 04.09.2021, 14.09.2021, 16.09.2021 and 21.09.2021. Issue summons to L.W.12 for the hearing on 04.09.2021. Evidence-joseph 9-4-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ElD8IjGsA1H40gtMQ6YJT7m4OHO57_Fx/view?usp=sharing
9-4-2021 A1 to A9 produced,LW12 examined as PW7.Mr.MuthuMohan advocate filed vakalath for A8.At request Send witness summon to LW13 for the hearings 14.9.2021 Crmp 411 /2021 Counter At request time extended till 14.9.21 Evidence-shankarligam 9-14-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/15FK8zkaUDkF54p-b4Z9P4PxKz4DbBOgJ/view?usp=sharing
9-14-2021 Cr.M.P.No.411/2021 in S.C.No.470/2020 - At request. Time Extended till then 17.09.2021. S.C.No.470/2020 - A1 to A9 produced through Video Conference. Today witness not present. It is represented on prosecution that L.W.13&#039s father is not doing well. Learned P.P. requested to send summons to L.W.14. At request adjourned to 17.09.2021. Send summons to L.W.14. Evidence 9-17-2021
9-17-2021 Crmp 411/2021 At request time extended till 21.9.21 SC 470/2020 A1 to A9 produced, Lw14 examined as PW 8 At request send summon to LW15 for the hearing on 21.9.2021 Evidence-ravisekar 9-21-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/17gAtZKPjYj77MIjC8_VDc5nbwYshvAmN/view?usp=sharing
9-21-2021 Crmp 411/2021 Counter at request time extended till 28.9.21 A1 to A9 produced LW15 examined as PW9 At request send witness summon to LW17 for the hearing on 28.9.21 Evidence-manimaran 9-28-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OV-l2X1MAIFP1qCnVP0hzgMYKnP7FNL-/view?usp=sharing
9-28-2021 Crmp 411/21 Counter at request time extended 4.10.21 SC 470/2020 A1 to A9 produced LW17 examined as PW10 At request send witness summon LW18 by 4.10.21 Evidence-rajram 10-4-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YPSCgkpwbJSsl32_PUAL9bkdKif8HJLn/view?usp=sharing
10-4-2021 Crmp 411/2021 At request time extended 8.10.21 A1 to A9 produced LW18 examined as PW11 at request send witness summon to LW22 call on 8.10.21 Evidence-Arwin 10-8-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T7PlgEoZYKBGzWDA10nv4vJQFnP6Ifn4/view?usp=sharing
10-8-2021 Crmp 411/2021 Counter filed Enquirly by 25.10.21. Cr.M.P.No.577/2021 - This petition is dismissed. SC470/2020 A1 to A9 produced LW22 examined as PW12 At request send witness summon to LW23 by 25.10.21 Evidence-Eskidurai 10-25-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/18q2R5ar862VaUbmDoTLTMMfx7iG4nVoE/view?usp=sharing
10-25-2021 Crmp 584/21 Enquiry Advocate Not attend the Court Adjourned to 28.10.21 SC470/2020 A1 to A9 produced through Video conference today.Witness not present Advocates not attended Court.At request on prosecution adjourned to 28.10.21 for examination of LW23 Evidence 10-28-2021
10-28-2021 Cr.M.P.No.411/2021 - At request adjourned to 10.11.2021. S.C.No.470/2020 - A1 to A9 produced. L.W.23 examined as P.W.13. At request send summon to L.W.30 by 10.11.2021. Evidence-pachipandi 11-10-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p7AnNZDpCmHWA0KxQfgkBcZT28Sc-ffS/view?usp=sharing
11-10-2021 Cr.M.P.No.411/2021 - Enquiry at request adjourned to 12.11.2021. S.CNo.470/2020 - 12.35 P.M. A1 to A9 produced. LW 30 not present. No representation on prosecution side. LW 30 called absent adjourned to 12.11.2021. Evidence 11-12-2021
11-12-2021 A1 to A9 produced. L.W.30 examined as P.W.14. Ex.P.15 to P 18 marked. At request. Send Summons to L.W.31 by 16.11.2021. Evidence-Nadarajan 11-16-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l_qrLHVlYqewAlO5IQQzh4FxRS5tjmYB/view?usp=sharing
11-16-2021 Crmp 411/21 At request adjourned to 19.11.21 SC 470/2020 A1 to A9 produced LW31 examined as PW15 EX.P19,EX P20 marked in cross examination.At request send summon to LW32 by 19.11.21 Evidence-KIRUBAI KRENAPPU 11-19-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O_TtVxjbmWWAza6x-aC2LZ4bpDhFfbkx/view?usp=sharing
11-19-2021 Crmp 411/21 Enquiry by 22.11.21 SC 470/2020 A1 to A9 produced through video conference Advocates not attending the courts witnes not present At request adjourned to 22.11.21 for exam of LW32 Evidence 11-22-2021
11-22-2021 A1 to A9 produced. L.W.32 examined as P.W.16. M.O.1 marked (Pen drive). At request send summons to L.W.37 by 26.11.2021. Evidence-INFANT ANTONY JM BIJU 11-26-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1By39il_HlDdFtVLdfpoJ8BFKH0jRJq6e/view?usp=sharing
11-26-2021 Crmp 411/2021 At request adjourned to 4.12.21 SC 470/2020 A1 to A9 produced LW37 examined as PW17 At request send summon to LW39 by 4.12.21 Evidence-KARUPASWAMY 12-4-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MZgzur8xAmaQVfJG57Bw881DYqa9wwBk/view?usp=sharing
12-4-2021   Crmp 411/2021 Enquiry At request adjourned to 8.12.2021 SC 470/2020 A1 to A7,A9 produced LW39 examined as PW18, A8 not produced in Court, Letter received from Jail authority that A8 is taking treatment in Government Rajaji Hospital Madurai.A8 seen through V.C. and remand extended.A8s counsel present in the Court At request on prosecution send summon to LW40 by 8.12.2021 Evidence-venkatesh 12-8-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XCSXnPJ8wXhalPFLDhqZX5AG0kp5E18l/view?usp=sharing
12-8-2021 A1 to A7,A9 produced through Video Conference. Today L.W.40 not present. It is represented on prosecution that L.W.14 is engaged in Surgery fixed already. A8 seen through Video Conference and his remand extended. At request on prosecution send summons to L.W.55 for the hearing on 10.12.2021. Cr.M.P.No.411/2021 in S.C.No.470/2020 - At request adjourned to 10.12.2021. Evidence 12-10-2021
12-10-2021 Crmp 411/2021 Enquriy At request adjourned to 16.12.21 SC 470/2020 A1 to A7,A9 produced LW55 examined as PW19,EXP21 marked.A8 seen through video conference and his remand extended.At request on prosecution send summon to LW51 by 16.12.21 Evidence-ponraj 12-16-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ODW6r-ePDeRifsZE1fu_UazvreBDDSHm/view?usp=sharing
12-16-2021 Crmp 411/21 Enquiry At request adjourned to 21.12.2021 SC 470/2020 A1 to A7,A9 produced LW51 examined as PW20 EX P22 to EX P34 marked PW20 cross examined on A6,A9,A5,A2,A8 side. Adjourned for A1,A3,A4,A7 side cross exam on 21.12.21,A8 seen through Video call Evidence-Ravichandran 12-21-2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EFPPyjoF-TOyRiE4fSv3qCorjJd_TP_-/view?usp=sharing
12-21-2021 Crmp 411/2021 Enquiry At request adjourned to 7.1.2022 SC 470/2020 A1 to A7 and A9 produced PW20 recalled and cross examined.A8 seen through Video call.EXP35 and ESP36 marked At request on prosecution side send summon to LW40 for the hearing on 7.1.2022 Evidence-Ravichandran 1-7-2022 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tXK5q7onS-gYjGaLHHiys-22Zp_3guXZ/view?usp=sharing
1-7-2022 Cr.M.P.No.411/2021 in S.C.No.470/2020 - As per order of Hon&#039ble High Court, Madras in R.O.C.No.23991-C/2020/C3, dated 02.01.2022 and as per Official Memorandum of Principal District Judge, Madurai in D.No.15/22 dated 03.01.2022. Case is reposted to 20.01.2022. S.C.No.470/2020 - A1 to A9 produced through Video Conference. As per order of Hon&#039ble High Court, Madras in R.O.C.No.23991-C/2020/C3, dated 02.01.2022 and as per Official Memorandum of Principal District Judge, Madurai in D.No.15/22 dated 03.01.2022, Physical and hybrid option hearings suspended. Today witness not examined. Adjourned to 20.01.2022. Evidence 1-20-2022
1-20-2022 Cr.M.P.No.411/2021 in S.C.No.470/2020 - No physical hearing. At request adjourned to 03.02.2022. S.C.No.470/2020 - A1 to A9 produced through Video Conference. Learned public prosecutor and all learned defence counsel and advocate assisting prosecution appeared through Video Conference. All the defence Counsel submitted that witness may be examined in Court on physical hearing and further stated about the practical and technical issues involved while cross examining the witnesses through virtual hearing on whole day by all the defence counsel one after one. The learned Public Prosecutor prayed further time for examination of witness. In this circumstances adjourned to 03.02.2022. Evidence 2-3-2022
2-3-2022 Cr.M.P.No.411/2021 in S.C.No.470/2020 - No physical hearing. Adjourned to 11.02.2022. S.C.No.470/2020 - A1 to A9 produced through Video Conference. No physical hearing. Adjourned to 11.02.2022. Remand 11-02-2022
11-02-2022 Cr.M.P.No.411/2021 in S.C.No.470/2020 - At request adjourned to 18.02.2022. S.C.No.470/2020 - A1 to A9 produced through Video Conference. At request on prosecution adjourned to 18.02.2022 for examination of L.W.40. Issue summons. Remand 18/02/2022
18/02/2022 Cr.M.P.No.411/2021 in S.C.No.470/2020 - Advocates not attending the Court. Adjourned to 25.02.2022. S.C.No.470/2020 - A1 to A9 produced through Video Conference. Today witness not present. Advocates not attending the Court. Due to local body election, Police expressed difficulty to produce the accused persons before the Court since there is a shortage of escort police. In such circumstances the case is adjourned to 25.02.2022 for examination of L.W.40. Evidence 25/02/2022
25/02/2022 Cr.M.P.No.411/2021 - At request adjourned to 05.03.2022. S.C.No.470/2020 -A1 to A9 produced. LW 40 examined as PW 21. Ex.P 37 to P 47 marked. At request send summons to LW 42 by 05.03.2022. Application under section 319 Cr.P.C., filed on A4 side and pending. Crmp 60/2022 At request on prosecution side objection by 5.3.2022 Evidence -balasubramanian 05-03-2022 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F-2Ct6CidH03XnbifInMnrgB7n5ckLFL/view?usp=sharing
05-03-2022 A1 to A9 produced.LW42 examined as PW22.At request on prosecution send summon to LW44 by 10.3.2022 Crmp 411/21 and Crmp 60/2022 call on 15.3.2022 Evidence -pugalivasuki 10-03-2022 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FBjmu1oPaOzp8xJzh71yJc-y06Rq-Agq/view?usp=sharing
10-03-2022 Cr.M.P.No.116/2022 in S.C.No.470/2020 - Objections. At request on P.P. side. Time Extended till 15.03.2022. S.C.No.470/2020 - A1 to A9 produced. L.W.44 examined as P.W.23. At request on prosecution send summons to L.W.54 by 15.03.2022. Evidence -ARUNACHALA PERUMAL 15/03/2022 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-qDSVsgOIhf1iU2gnxMFczdvDFAxgsgd/view?usp=sharing

Aftermath

On 8 July 2020, the Office of the Additional Chief Secretary issued an order disbanding the Friends of Police movement in the whole of Tamil Nadu.[40] This reversed an earlier order issued in 1994, which extended the Friends of Police movement to the whole state of Tamil Nadu.

See also

References
  1. "Trial on Wrong confinement and murder:Hyndustani times". Christiani times. 14 February 2021. Retrieved 20 April 2021.
  2. "Trial on Wrong confinement and murder:Hyndustani times". Christiani times. 14 February 2021. Retrieved 20 April 2021.
  3. "Trial on Wrong confinement and murder:Hyndustani times". Christiani times. 14 February 2021. Retrieved 20 April 2021.
  4. "Tamil Nadu Can't Turn Blind Eye to Police Torture: Amnesty India". The Quint. 27 June 2020. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
  5. ""India's George Floyds": Father-son death in police custody sparks outrage". Reuters. 27 June 2020. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
  6. "Justice for Jayaraj and Bennix: Timeline of two shocking custodial deaths in TN". www.thenewsminute.com. 26 June 2020. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
  7. "Thoothukudi: Outrage after father, son die in police custody". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
  8. Kaveri, Megha (26 June 2020). "Justice for Jayaraj and Bennix: Timeline of two shocking custodial deaths in TN". The News Minute. Retrieved 29 June 2020.
  9. The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (PDF): 8 https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-377084.pdf. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  10. The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (PDF): 8 https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-377084.pdf. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  11. "Tamil Nadu: Social Media Outrage, Protests Over Brutal Thoothukudi Custodial Deaths". The Wire. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
  12. M. K. Ananth. "Man, son die in custody: Relatives, traders complain of police torture in Tamil Nadu | Chennai News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 29 June 2020.
  13. Vignessh (24 June 2020). "Sexual torture inflicted on father-son in TN police custody: Witnesses". The Federal. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
  14. "Police used disparaging remarks: JM probing father, son custodial deaths". Deccan Herald. 29 June 2020. Retrieved 30 June 2020.
  15. "Sathankulam police not cooperating with judicial inquiry; HC orders revenue officials to take control of police station". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 30 June 2020.
  16. "Priyanka Chopra condemns alleged custodial deaths of father-son in Tuticorin". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 29 June 2020.
  17. "'India's George Floyds': Father-son death in police custody sparks outrage". Reuters. 27 June 2020. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
  18. "Tamil Nadu Can't Turn Blind Eye to Police Torture: Amnesty India". The Quint. 27 June 2020. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
  19. Janani K. "Tuticorin custodial death: Khushbu to Jayam Ravi, celebs demand justice". India Today. Retrieved 29 June 2020.
  20. "Indian cricketers Ravichandran Ashwin, Shikhar Dhawan call for justice in Tamil Nadu custodial death case". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 29 June 2020.
  21. Reuters (27 June 2020). "'India's George Floyds': Father-Son Death in Police Custody Sparks Outrage". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
  22. "'India's George Floyds': Father-son death in police custody sparks outrage". cnbctv18.com. 27 June 2020. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
  23. "Regret glorifying police brutality: Director Hari". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 29 June 2020.
  24. Staff Reporter (29 June 2020). "Govt. action in custodial deaths case insufficient: Kamal Haasan". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 29 June 2020.
  25. "OPINION: Thoothukudi police violence case worse than Nirbhaya". The Week. Retrieved 29 June 2020.
  26. "Sathankulam station inspector Sridhar suspended over custodial deaths". www.thenewsminute.com. 28 June 2020. Retrieved 29 June 2020.
  27. Vignessh (23 June 2020). "Tension grips TN's Tuticorin district due to custodial death of father-son duo". The Federal. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
  28. M. K. Ananth. "Sathankulam News: Custodial deaths of father-son duo spark tension in Tamil Nadu's Tuticorin | Chennai News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
  29. "DMK MP Kanimozhi writes to NHRC over 'custodial death' of shopkeeper, son". The Indian Express. 26 June 2020. Retrieved 29 June 2020.
  30. "COVID-19 in Tamil Nadu: Kanimozhi writes to NHRC over custodial deaths; 3000 TASMAC outlets to have CCTV cameras". The Indian Express. 26 June 2020. Retrieved 29 June 2020.
  31. Staff Reporter (28 June 2020). "Sattankulam custodial deaths | CBI will investigate the case, says Tamil Nadu CM". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 29 June 2020.
  32. "Will seek permission from Court to transfer Tuticorin custodial death case to CBI: Palaniswami". ANI News. Retrieved 29 June 2020.
  33. http://www.cbi.gov.in/pressreleases/pr_2020-09-26-1.php
  34. Akshaya Nath. "Tuticorin custodial deaths: Father-son duo brutally tortured, made to clean their own blood, says forensic report". India Today. Retrieved 30 October 2020.
  35. "TN Father-son Duo, Killed in Police Custody, Was Tortured for Over 7 Hours, Reveals CBI Chargesheet". News18. 27 October 2020. Retrieved 30 October 2020.
  36. Akshaya Nath. "Tuticorin custodial deaths: Father-son duo brutally tortured, made to clean their own blood, says forensic report". India Today. Retrieved 30 October 2020.
  37. "TN Father-son Duo, Killed in Police Custody, Was Tortured for Over 7 Hours, Reveals CBI Chargesheet". News18. 27 October 2020. Retrieved 30 October 2020.
  38. "Jayaraj-Benniks custodial deaths | Father, son were tortured for 7 hours, made to clean blood, says CBI". Moneycontrol. Retrieved 30 October 2020.
  39. Akshaya Nath. "Tuticorin custodial deaths: Father-son duo brutally tortured, made to clean their own blood, says forensic report". India Today. Retrieved 30 October 2020.
  40. "Government of Tamil Nadu : Government Orders | Tamil Nadu Government Portal" (PDF). Government of Tamil Nadu : Government Orders. 8 July 2020. Retrieved 10 July 2020.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.