In a development that is unprecedented in Tamil Nadu’s legal and policing history, a Madurai Court sentenced to death nine police personnel from Sathankulam police station in Thoothukudi district for the custodial torture and murder of traders P. Jayaraj (60) and his son Bennix (31) on June 19, 2020.

Pronouncing the verdict on April 6, Judge G. Muthukumaran of the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, called it a “rarest of rare” case that deserved a death penalty. He pointed out that the accused were guilty of a “gross abuse of power”: those sworn to safeguard the lives of citizens had turned killers and “violators of law and constitutional responsibilities”.

On March 23, the court found them guilty of all charges under Sections 302, 342, 201, 182, 193, 211, 218, 120(B), and 34 of the then Indian Penal Code (IPC). In fact, the entire staff of the Sathankulam Police station—except a woman constable, who served as a crucial witness—was convicted of murder. They include the then Sathankulam Police Inspector S. Sridhar, Sub-Inspectors P. Raghu Ganesh and K. Balakrishnan, head constables S. Murugan and A. Saamidurai, constables M. Muthuraj, S. Chelladurai, X. Thomas Francis, S. Veilumuthu, and Special Sub-Inspector Pauldurai. The last named died pending trial due to COVID-19.

The CBI had filed a 2,000-page charge sheet against the perpetrators. Incidentally, the CBI is also investigating the custodial death of 26-year-old Ajithkumar of Sivagangai district, where several policemen face similar charges, including murder.

This verdict signals a significant shift in the national perception of custodial torture. For the first time, multiple officers from a single police station have been held criminally accountable for custodial deaths.

The Jayaraj-Bennix murders had triggered widespread public outrage in 2020 and reignited a national debate on police excesses and the urgent need for institutional accountability. “Do they have a licence to kill innocents?” asked Persis, Jayaraj’s daughter and Bennix’s elder sister, speaking to the media moments after the verdict. She wondered how the policemen—men with sisters, brothers, wives, and children of their own—could descend to such “beastly behaviour”. “It was a heinous crime committed with brazen authority,” she said. Throughout the six-year-long pursuit of justice, Persis and her mother have maintained a steadfast legal battle against the State.

Data from the National Crime Records Bureau shows that the State’s record in prosecuting its own law enforcers remains far from reassuring. Between 2011 and 2022, only one police officer in Tamil Nadu was convicted for custodial violence.

Also Read | How many more Ajith Kumars?

Separate data from People’s Watch, a Madurai-based rights organisation, paints an equally grim picture: 32 custodial deaths were reported from 2021-2025, following 40 reported during 2011-2016. “No action has been taken against any police personnel involved in these incidents,” noted its director, Henry Tiphagne.

In the Sathankulam case, the judge, in his verdict, noted that the injuries inflicted on Jayaraj and Bennix were unnatural. He rejected the claims that the injuries were “self-inflicted”, citing post-mortem reports that had confirmed a sustained, brutal assault. He concluded that it was a case of cold-blooded murder, executed with impunity by the custodians of law.

Both Jayaraj and Bennix, mobile shop owners, were detained for violating COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. At the Sathankulam Police Station, they were subjected to third-degree torture, including rectal assault with batons, resulting in fatal internal injuries. They were later remanded to judicial custody under Sections 188, 269, 294(b), 353, and 506(ii) of the then IPC and moved to Kovilpatti sub-jail in the early hours of June 20. Bennix succumbed to his injuries on June 22, and Jayaraj died the following morning at Kovilpatti Government Hospital.

The deaths shocked the national conscience, even drawing condemnation from the Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association, which termed it a “barbaric custodial torture”.

The incident could have remained a minor case if the police had acted diligently and within the confines of the law. The alleged “offence” did not attract serious provisions of the IPC or warrant a remand. The victims had no prior criminal record. The case originated from a minor verbal altercation between the police and Jayaraj over the closing time of his shop; Jayaraj had even cooperated by visiting the police station voluntarily after being summoned. Even the FIR offered a dubious explanation for the injuries sustained, claiming that father and son had “rolled on the ground” when the police asked them to shut shop.

The deaths have raised critical questions about remand procedures and the accountability of those entrusted with constitutional duties. From the moment of arrest, the rule of law was disregarded. The Sathankulam magistrate issued the remand order “mechanically”, without verifying the police’s claims or evaluating the physical condition of the detainees. He directed that they be sent to the Kovilpatti sub-jail, nearly 80 kilometres away, despite there being a sub-jail in Sathankulam itself.

Retired Madras High Court judge K. Chandru later wrote in the media that the remand orders were issued from the magistrate’s “balcony” while the victims stood bleeding in the street. Furthermore, a government medical officer in Sathankulam cleared them for judicial detention without a proper assessment. A lawyer associated with the case, however, told Frontline that, given the COVID-19 lockdown and the conduct of key court proceedings via videoconferencing at the time, the magistrate could have avoided in-person interaction with the detainees. When asked whether this issue had been raised before the bench, he declined to comment.

However, legal experts have questioned why the High Court remained silent regarding disciplinary action against the subordinate judicial officer. Justice Chandru was of the view that the high court should have initiated action against the Sathankulam magistrate, who, he claimed, had acted against the tenets of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Article 22 (1) states that a person shall not be arrested or detained in custody without being informed of the grounds for the arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult a legal practitioner of his or her choice. Many Supreme Court judgments have ruled that any magistrate violating these provisions must face disciplinary action.

However, the prison staff at Kovilpatti sub-jail acted with prudence. When Jayaraj and Bennix were brought in during the early hours of June 20, they sensed that something was amiss. The escorting police officers failed to provide satisfactory answers when asked why the two men were brought to Kovilpatti instead of the sub-jail in Sathankulam. Unwilling to take any chances, the prison staff meticulously recorded the victims’ injuries in the prison logbook on arrival. Around 7:30 p.m. on June 22, Bennix reportedly developed chest pain and died two hours later at the Kovilpatti Government Hospital. In the early hours of June 23, Jayaraj too complained of uneasiness and breathlessness; he later died at the same hospital. Despite reports of undue pressure on doctors and paramedical staff at the Kovilpatti Government Hospital to falsify medical reports, the doctors remained resolute in their findings.

Relatives and friends of the deceased alleged that when the police assaulted Jayaraj with a baton, Bennix intervened. Subsequently, both father and son were beaten up with batons. Jayaraj was kicked in his chest while a baton was inserted into his rectum, causing a fatal puncture.

Following State-wide protests by traders on June 24, a two-member Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justices P. N. Prakash and B. Pugalendhi took suo motu cognisance on June 25. They had found prima facie evidence to frame murder charges against the police. They asked the Kovilpatti judicial magistrate G. Bharathidasan to investigate and submit his report to the bench directly. The subsequent judicial inquiry revealed that the CCTV footage from the night of the torture had been deleted. The judicial magistrate had to recover the hard disk to access the footage.

Based on the report, the bench ordered a CB-CID probe and directed the State to immediately transfer all the officials concerned at the Sathankulam police station. In an unprecedented move, the bench also directed the Thoothukudi District Collector “to depute Revenue Officers to take over the Sathankulam Police Station, for the purpose of preserving the clue materials”. The probe was later transferred to the CBI, which filed a 2000-page charge sheet.

Anti-torture law and pro-victim verdicts

The Sathankulam deaths have reignited the debate over the urgent need for a dedicated law to address custodial violence. The Union government made two attempts to introduce an anti-torture law—first in 2010 and again in 2017—but neither effort succeeded. In 2010, the then Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram introduced the Prevention of Torture Bill in the Lok Sabha, where it was passed. However, the Rajya Sabha referred it to a Select Committee, thereby stalling the Bill.

Many pro-victim verdicts—most notably the landmark judgment in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal—have sought to safeguard victims and fix accountability on the perpetrators. While custodial violence thrives in the shadows of power, this pro-victim approach upheld the rights to dignity, equality, and life under Article 21. Indeed, Articles 21, 20(3), and 22 of the Constitution collectively guarantee fundamental safeguards for those detained or arrested.

Also Read | Police terror

The Basu case set forth 11 guidelines to law enforcers regarding arrest and detention, yet many States follow them largely in breach. Other important verdicts include Nilabati vs State of Orissa, which held the state liable for custodial deaths, and the Paramvir Singh case, in which the Supreme Court mandated the installation of CCTVs with audio recording in all police stations across the country. However, these interventions act only as partial deterrents. Only a robust Anti-Torture Law can effectively end torture in police stations and prison cells.

A dubious record

Despite its progressive reputation, Tamil Nadu has a troubling record of custodial deaths. Over the past four years, of the 31 victims of judicial and police violence in custody, nearly 38 per cent belong to marginalised and minority communities. Tamil Nadu recorded the second-highest number of custodial deaths, with 490 cases reported between 2019 and 2020.

Data shared by the Ministry of Home Affairs with the Lok Sabha underscores the scale of the problem at the national level: in 2021–22 alone, there were 2,152 deaths in judicial custody and 155 in police custody across the country. Yet, over five years, action was initiated in only 21 cases, with no prosecutions. In Tamil Nadu, since 2021, there have been 24 custodial deaths with zero convictions.

Against this backdrop, pro-victim verdicts like the Sathankulam judgment restore a measure of faith in a system marred by structural infirmities. The judiciary acts as a counterbalance to institutional excesses, but isolated judgments cannot substitute for comprehensive reform. A robust Anti-Torture law is essential to serve as an effective deterrent against such extra-constitutional killings.