The Case of Guddu Sonkar and the Continuing Failure of Power Safety Accountability

Death by Electrocution in Mirzapur:

The Case of Guddu Sonkar and the Continuing Failure of Power Safety Accountability

NHRC Diary No.: 4043/IN/2025
NHRC Case/File No.: 2168/24/55/2025
Category: Death Due to Electrocution (1514)
Date of Incident: 22 February 2025
Place: Bankuthpur village, Adalhat Police Station area, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh
Victim: Guddu Sonkar (30 years)
Caste: Scheduled Caste

Introduction

Deaths caused by unsafe electricity infrastructure continue to claim lives in rural Uttar Pradesh, disproportionately affecting Dalit and economically vulnerable communities. The death of Guddu Sonkar, a 30-year-old Scheduled Caste man from Bankuthpur village in Mirzapur district, is another stark reminder of the systemic negligence surrounding power distribution safety.

Despite the seriousness of the incident, the response of authorities—particularly the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL)—has been marked by delay, silence, and non-compliance, prompting repeated interventions by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

Incident Overview

According to the complaint submitted to the NHRC:

• On 22 February 2025, a high-voltage electric wire snapped and fell near the bypass over-bridge area in Bankuthpur village, Mirzapur.

• Guddu Sonkar came into contact with the live wire and died due to electrocution.

• The incident occurred in a public space, indicating a grave failure in maintaining electrical safety infrastructure.

• The deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste, raising concerns about structural vulnerability and neglect.

The complainant sought:

• An independent investigation

• Accountability of the electricity department

• Appropriate compensation for the victim’s family

NHRC’s Cognizance and Early Action

The NHRC received the complaint on 28 February 2025 and registered it under Section M-5.

On 14 July 2025, the Commission:

• Took cognizance of the death

• Directed the Chairman, UPPCL, Lucknow to:

  • Examine the matter

  • Take necessary action

  • Submit an Action Taken Report (ATR) within four weeks

Continued Non-Compliance by UPPCL

Despite clear directions from the NHRC:

• No Action Taken Report was submitted by UPPCL

• The Commission issued a reminder on 27 August 2025

• Still, no response was received

This compelled the NHRC, on 22 December 2025, to issue a final reminder, warning that:

Failure to submit the report would force the Commission to invoke its coercive powers under Section 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

A deadline was fixed for 15 January 2026.

Key Human Rights Concerns

1. Right to Life (Article 21)

Death due to exposed or fallen high-voltage wires is a direct violation of the right to life, especially when it occurs in public areas.

2. State’s Duty of Care

Electricity distribution agencies have a non-delegable duty to:

• Maintain safe infrastructure

• Prevent foreseeable harm

• Act immediately after fatal incidents

3. Caste and Structural Vulnerability

The victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste, reflecting a pattern where:

• Marginalized communities live near unsafe infrastructure

• Preventive maintenance is weakest

• Accountability is slowest

4. Administrative Apathy

Repeated silence by UPPCL despite NHRC notices reflects:

• Institutional disregard for human life

• Weak compliance culture with human rights bodies

• A normalization of electrocution deaths as “routine accidents”

A Pattern, Not an Isolated Incident

This case mirrors several earlier electrocution deaths across Uttar Pradesh where:

• Authorities respond only after fatalities

• Infrastructure is “corrected” post-death

• Compensation replaces accountability

• Criminal or departmental liability is rarely fixed

The delay in responding to NHRC itself becomes a secondary violation—undermining the credibility of oversight mechanisms.

Conclusion

Guddu Sonkar’s death was not inevitable.
It was preventable.

A fallen high-voltage wire in a public space represents state failure, not fate. The continued non-response of UPPCL to NHRC directions deepens the injustice and reflects how Dalit lives remain expendable in infrastructural governance.

Justice in such cases must mean:

• Transparent investigation

• Departmental and criminal accountability

• Timely and adequate compensation

• Structural reforms in power safety

Until then, electrocution deaths will continue to be recorded—not prevented.

This blog is based entirely on NHRC records and official correspondence in Case No. 2168/24/55/2025.

 

 

Burnt Alive Under a Live Wire

The Death of Truck Driver Abdul Kalam in Jaunpur and the Limits of Accountability

NHRC Case No.: 4522/24/39/2024

NHRC Diary No.: 2027/IN/2024

Category: Death Due to Electrocution (1514)

Date of Incident: 24 December 2023

Place: Village Kuravan / Nurawa, Sujan Ganj, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh

Victim: Abdul Kalam (also referred to as Kalam Murghi), approx. 30 years

Introduction

On the morning of 24 December 2023, a truck driver transporting goods through rural Jaunpur was burnt alive inside his vehicle. His truck came in contact with a live high-tension electricity wire, triggering a fire so intense that escape became impossible.

The incident, widely reported in the media, raised serious questions about public safety, electricity infrastructure, employer responsibility, and state accountability. A complaint was submitted to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) seeking an impartial investigation and justice for the deceased worker’s family.

Nearly 19 months later, the NHRC closed the case, concluding that no negligence could be attributed to the Electricity Department.

This blog examines what happened—and what remains unresolved.

What Happened on 24 December 2023

According to the NHRC-recorded facts:

• Time of incident: 10:55 AM

• Location: Village Nurawa, Block Sujan Ganj, Tehsil Machhlishahr, Jaunpur

• Vehicle: Truck owned by Star Road Lines, Prayagraj

• Driver: Abdul Kalam, resident of Varanasi district

While passing through a chak road, a metal structure on top of the truck became entangled with a live electricity wire. As the truck moved forward:

• The wire snapped and fell on the truck

• The entire vehicle became electrically charged

• The driver was unable to exit

• The truck caught fire

• Abdul Kalam died on the spot due to electrocution and burns

Police later conducted inquest and post-mortem proceedings.

The NHRC Complaint

Human rights activist Lenin Raghuvanshi filed a complaint before the NHRC on 6 February 2024, citing:

• Media reports of the driver being burnt alive

• Alleged low-hanging HT wire

• The need for an independent investigation

• Justice and compensation for the victim’s family

The NHRC took cognizance and sought reports from:

• UP Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL)

• Directorate of Electrical Safety

• Energy Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh

• Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur

• Labour Department

Findings of the Authorities

Based on multiple reports, the NHRC recorded the following conclusions:

1. Electricity Department

• The live wire was found to be erected as per prescribed standards

• No specific measurement details were provided in the report

• After the incident, the wire height was increased to 6.5 metres

• The Electrical Safety Directorate concluded:

  “There was no negligence on part of the DISCOM”

2. Cause Attributed

The fatal accident was attributed to:

• Over-height truck

• Violation of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956

• Alleged careless driving

• Responsibility placed on the truck owner, not the state

3. Police

• Inquest and post-mortem were conducted

• No criminal negligence attributed to public authorities

4. Labour Department

• Employer paid ₹1,00,000 to the victim’s wife

• Family advised to approach Labour Court under the Employees’ Compensation Act

NHRC’s Final Decision (14 July 2025)

After reviewing all reports, the NHRC concluded:

“Further action is not required.”

The case was formally closed, and the complainant was informed accordingly.

Critical Questions That Remain

While the case is closed on paper, serious human rights concerns persist:

1. Why was a live HT wire passing through a public road area accessible to heavy vehicles?

2. Why were wire-height standards not transparently disclosed in the inquiry?

3. If standards were met, why was the wire height increased after the death?

4. Can a daily-wage driver realistically be blamed for infrastructure hazards beyond his control?

5. Is ₹1 lakh compensation adequate for a worker burnt alive while on duty?

The inquiry framework focused narrowly on technical compliance, not on the state’s duty of care toward workers and road users.

Beyond Legal Closure: The Human Rights Lens

This case reflects a broader pattern:

• Workers in informal sectors bear the deadliest risks

• Infrastructure failures are often reframed as individual fault

• Accountability shifts away from public authorities

• Compensation becomes a substitute for justice

A death by electrocution in a public space is not merely an “accident”—it is a preventable loss demanding systemic scrutiny.Conclusion

Abdul Kalam did not die because he was careless.

He died because dangerous infrastructure met vulnerable labour.

When institutions declare “no negligence” after a man is burnt alive under a live wire, it exposes the limits of accountability in cases involving the poor and working class.

Justice should not end with a closure order.

It should begin with safe infrastructure, fair compensation, and real responsibility.

This blog is based entirely on official NHRC records, inquiry reports, and correspondence in Case No. 4522/24/39/2024.

Custodial Death in Gonda, Uttar Pradesh

The Case of Dev Narayan Yadav and NHRC’s Prolonged Struggle for Accountability

NHRC Case No.: 30196/24/33/2022-AD

NHRC Diary No.: 15696/IN/2022

Category: Custodial Death (Police) – 807

Place: Nawabganj Jaitpur, District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh

Date of Death: 14 September 2022

Victim: Dev Narayan Yadav, Age 22 years

Introduction

Custodial deaths strike at the heart of constitutional democracy. When a young man dies allegedly due to police brutality and the system fails to complete even mandatory inquiries for years, it raises fundamental questions about rule of law, police accountability, and access to justice.

The custodial death of Dev Narayan Yadav, a 22-year-old resident of Gonda district, Uttar Pradesh, is one such case—now pending before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) for nearly three years due to repeated non-compliance by local authorities.

Background of the Complaint

On 27 September 2022, human rights defender Lenin Raghuvanshi submitted a complaint to the NHRC alleging that:

• Dev Narayan Yadav died on 14 September 2022

• His death was caused by cruel beating by police personnel

• The incident occurred in Nawabganj Police Station area, Gonda

• The family demanded registration of a murder case and compensation

Following public pressure and complaints, FIR No. 369/22 under Sections 147/302 IPC was registered at PS Nawabganj on 15 September 2022.

NHRC Proceedings: A Timeline of Delay

Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the case has seen persistent delays:

• 2022–2023: NHRC repeatedly called for:

  • Magisterial Inquiry Report

  • Status of Final Report filed before the court

• 29 August 2023: The case was sent to the NHRC Investigation Division due to incomplete records.

• The Investigation Division explicitly noted that:

  • Mandatory reports had not been furnished despite repeated directions.

Police Final Report vs Missing Magisterial Inquiry

In August 2025, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Gonda submitted a report stating:

• A Final Report (closure report) had been filed in FIR No. 369/22

• The police concluded that there was “lack of evidence” to proceed

However, a crucial legal requirement remained unfulfilled:

The Magisterial Inquiry Report—mandatory in every custodial death—was never submitted to the NHRC.

This inquiry was reportedly pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Gonda, but no copy was furnished to the Commission.

NHRC’s Strong Observations (July 2025)

On 14 July 2025, the NHRC passed a significant order noting that:

• Despite years of correspondence, essential reports were still missing

• Without the magisterial inquiry, the Commission cannot logically conclude the case

• Continued non-compliance may compel the Commission to invoke its coercive powers under Section 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

The NHRC directed:

• The District Magistrate, Gonda

• The Superintendent of Police, Gonda

to submit the Magisterial Inquiry Report and final case status within six weeks, failing which coercive action may follow.

Why This Case Is Critical

This case highlights systemic issues:

• Delay as denial of justice

• Police investigating their own alleged wrongdoing

• Failure to comply with NHRC and Supreme Court guidelines

• Erosion of trust in custodial safeguards

As per Supreme Court jurisprudence and NHRC guidelines, every custodial death requires:

• Independent magisterial inquiry

• Post-mortem by a panel of doctors

• Videography of post-mortem

• Transparency and victim compensation where violations occur

None of these safeguards appear to have been conclusively fulfilled even after three years.

Unanswered Questions

1. Why has the Magisterial Inquiry Report not been submitted till date?

2. On what basis was the police final report filed without completing mandatory inquiries?

3. Has accountability been fixed for custodial violence?

4. Will the victim’s family receive compensation and rehabilitation?

5. How many such cases collapse due to “lack of evidence” created by delay?

The death of Dev Narayan Yadav is not just a case—it is a mirror reflecting the structural weaknesses in addressing custodial violence in India. The NHRC’s persistence underscores the importance of constitutional oversight, but true justice requires timely compliance by state authorities.

Until mandatory inquiries are completed and made public, custodial deaths will remain buried under files rather than answered by law.

Justice cannot depend on reminders. Accountability cannot wait indefinitely.

 

Death in Police Encounter or Custodial Killing?

The Case of Anju Devi’s Son and the Unanswered Questions of Police Accountability in Uttar Pradesh

Case Reference:

NHRC Case No. 26139/24/4/2023-AFE

NHRC Diary No. 16185/IN/2023

Category: Death in Police Encounter (812)

Place: Hanuman Ganj Korav, Prayagraj (Allahabad), Uttar Pradesh

Date of Incident: 09–12 September 2023

Introduction

Deaths in police encounters remain one of the gravest human rights concerns in India. While the State often justifies such deaths as necessary law enforcement actions, families of victims frequently allege illegal detention, torture, extortion, and staged encounters. One such disturbing case is that of Anju Devi, a resident of Prayagraj, whose son allegedly died following police custody and a purported fake encounter.

This blog documents the facts as placed before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and raises critical questions about due process, custodial violence, and institutional accountability.

Background of the Case

According to complaints submitted to the NHRC by Anju Devi (mother of the deceased) and human rights defender Dr. Lenin Raghuvanshi, the sequence of events unfolded as follows:

• On 10 September 2023, police personnel from Korav area allegedly picked up Anju Devi’s son from his residence.

• Family members claim that no arrest memo, FIR, or legal grounds for detention were provided.

• The victim was allegedly kept in illegal custody for nearly two days.

On 11 September 2023, Anju Devi sent an urgent complaint via email to senior police officials and the CM portal, stating that her son had been taken away by police and was untraceable.

Allegations of Torture and Extortion

The complaint further alleges:

• During custody, the victim was beaten and tortured.

• Police allegedly demanded ₹20,000 from the family for medical treatment after the victim sustained serious injuries.

• The victim was later taken to Swaroop Rani Hospital, Prayagraj.

These allegations, if proven, would amount to serious violations of Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Indian Constitution, as well as NHRC guidelines on arrest and detention.

The Alleged “Encounter”

As per the family’s version:

• On 12 September 2023, police took the victim to a forest area in Kaushambi district.

• His hands and mouth were allegedly tied, and he was forced to pose with a pistol while a video was recorded.

• Police allegedly fired at him, and the bullet hit his right shoulder.

• He was then taken to Swaroop Rani Hospital, where he died during treatment.

The family asserts that the encounter was staged and meant to justify an earlier illegal detention and custodial torture.

NHRC’s Intervention

The National Human Rights Commission took cognizance of the matter and:

• Clubbed the complaint of Anju Devi with the complaint filed by Dr. Lenin Raghuvanshi.

• Issued directions to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh and the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, seeking an Action Taken Report (ATR).

• On 08 July 2024, NHRC issued a reminder, noting that no report had been submitted despite earlier directions.

This delay itself raises concerns about institutional resistance and lack of transparency in encounter-related deaths.

Why This Case Matters

This case is not an isolated incident. It reflects a larger pattern where:

• Marginalised families struggle to get FIRs registered against police.

• Encounter narratives replace transparent investigations.

• Families are forced to approach constitutional bodies for basic accountability.

The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that every encounter death must be independently investigated, preferably by an agency other than the local police. NHRC guidelines also mandate magisterial inquiry, post-mortem videography, and compensation where violations are found.

Key Questions That Remain Unanswered

1. Was the victim legally arrested? If yes, where is the arrest memo?

2. Why was the victim allegedly kept in custody without judicial oversight?

3. Why has the Uttar Pradesh Police delayed submitting its report to NHRC?

4. Was an independent magisterial inquiry conducted?

5. Will the victim’s family receive justice, compensation, and rehabilitation?

Conclusion

The death of Anju Devi’s son highlights the urgent need to end the culture of impunity surrounding police encounters in India. Accountability cannot be selective, and the rule of law cannot survive if law enforcers themselves operate outside it.

The NHRC’s continued monitoring of this case is crucial. Civil society, media, and human rights institutions must remain vigilant to ensure that this case does not fade into silence like so many others.

Justice delayed is justice denied — especially when the State itself stands accused.

 

Death of a Woman in Judicial Custody and Delayed Forensic Accountability

 

Death of a Woman in Judicial Custody and Delayed Forensic Accountability

An NHRC Case Analysis from Sahibganj, Jharkhand

(NHRC Diary No. 6590/IN/2022 | Case No. 669/34/17/2022-AD)

By Lenin Raghuvanshi

Human Rights Defender

Deaths in judicial custody represent one of the gravest human rights concerns, engaging the absolute responsibility of the State. The case of a 35-year-old woman who died while lodged in District Jail, Sahibganj (Jharkhand) exposes serious systemic delays in forensic investigation and highlights how procedural inertia can undermine custodial accountability.

This article analyses the case as documented and monitored by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) from April 2022 to August 2024.

Case Identification

• NHRC Diary No.: 6590/IN/2022

• NHRC Case/File No.: 669/34/17/2022-AD

• Incident Category: Death in Judicial Custody

• Victim: One Woman

• Age / Gender: 35 years / Female

• Native Place: Bhagalpur District, Bihar

• Place of Custody: District Jail (Mandal Kara), Sahibganj

• State: Jharkhand

• Date of Death: 24 April 2022

• Complainant: Dr. Lenin Raghuvanshi (Convener, PVCHR)

• Mode of Complaint: HRCNet / Online

• NHRC Registration Date: 28 April 2022

Background of the Case

The NHRC received a complaint alleging that:

• A 35-year-old woman, originally from Bhagalpur, Bihar,

• Died on 24.04.2022

• While she was in judicial custody at District Jail, Sahibganj, Jharkhand

The complainant sought NHRC intervention, citing the State’s non-derogable obligation to ensure the life, health, and dignity of persons in custody.

Under settled constitutional jurisprudence, any custodial death automatically triggers heightened scrutiny, and the burden lies on the State to explain the circumstances convincingly.

Post-Mortem and Forensic Developments

As per reports eventually submitted to the NHRC:

• Post-mortem was conducted on 24.04.2022 at:

  • Sadar Hospital, Sahibganj

• Viscera preserved and sent to:

  • Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Ranchi

• However:

  • Histopathology and final cause of death reports were delayed for nearly two years

Final Forensic Findings

• FSL Report: Dated 15.03.2023

• Final Cause of Death: Communicated on 15.02.2024

• Cause of death reported as:

  “Cardio-respiratory failure”

These reports were submitted to NHRC only in July 2024, after repeated directions and coercive steps.

NHRC’s Intervention: A Chronology of Escalation

Initial Action (2022)

• NHRC called for Action Taken Reports from:

  • District Collector, Sahibganj

  • Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj

  • Superintendent of Prisons, District Jail Sahibganj

• Jharkhand State Human Rights Commission was also informed

Repeated Non-Compliance (2022–2024)

Despite multiple reminders and Additional Information Calls:

• Essential forensic reports were not submitted

• The matter remained pending solely due to absence of histopathology and final cause of death

This prolonged delay itself became a rights concern.

Conditional Summons under Section 13, PHRA

Due to continued inaction, NHRC invoked its coercive powers:

• Conditional Summons issued twice:

  • 11 October 2023

  • 11 June 2024

• Summons were issued to:

  • District Collector, Sahibganj

  • Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj

  • Superintendent of Prisons, Mandal Kara Jail

The Commission explicitly noted:

“Despite giving ample opportunities, the matter is still pending for want of Histopathology examination of viscera report as well as final cause of death.”

Authorities were directed to appear personally before the Commission unless reports were submitted.

Submission of Reports and Transfer to Investigation Division

Following issuance of summons:

• FSL report and final cause of death were finally submitted in July 2024

• On 20 August 2024, NHRC directed:

  • The Registry to forward all reports and documents to the Investigation Division of the Commission

  • For examination and independent assessment

  • With directions to place findings before the Commission within six weeks

At this stage, the matter remains under NHRC’s investigative scrutiny.

Human Rights Analysis

1. Custodial Death and Absolute State Responsibility

A person in judicial custody is under complete control of the State. Any death in custody:

• Triggers strict liability

• Requires:

  • Prompt medical records

  • Transparent forensic examination

  • Independent investigation

Delays of nearly two years in determining cause of death are incompatible with custodial accountability.

2. Forensic Delay as a Rights Violation

The prolonged absence of histopathology and final cause of death reports:

• Undermines the right to:

  • Effective investigation

  • Truth and accountability

• Raises concern about:

  • Evidence integrity

  • Possibility of suppression or negligence

Timely forensic analysis is not a procedural formality, but a human rights obligation.

3. Necessity of Coercive Oversight

This case demonstrates why NHRC’s powers under Section 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 are essential.

Without:

• Conditional summons

• Threat of personal appearance

The reports may never have been produced.

4. Beyond “Cardio-Respiratory Failure”

The phrase “cardio-respiratory failure” is a terminal physiological event, not an explanatory cause.

Human rights standards require examination of:

• Ante-mortem injuries

• Medical neglect

• Conditions of detention

• Possibility of custodial violence or neglect

This justifies NHRC’s decision to send the matter to its Investigation Division.

Why This Case Matters

This case underscores that:

• Custodial deaths are not merely medical events

• Delay itself can amount to denial of justice

• Institutional silence must not replace accountability

• Independent oversight is indispensable in jail-related deaths

The death of a woman in judicial custody at Sahibganj is not just a question of how she died, but why it took two years to find out.

NHRC’s persistence—through repeated reminders, conditional summons, and escalation to its Investigation Division—reflects the seriousness of custodial death cases. Yet, the ultimate test lies ahead: whether accountability follows forensic formalities.

Justice in custodial deaths must be swift, transparent, and fearless.

Anything less erodes the rule of law and the dignity of those behind bars.

Case Reference

NHRC Diary No. 6590/IN/2022

Case/File No. 669/34/17/2022-AD

Death of a Child in a School Hostel and the Limits of Institutional Accountability

Death of a Child in a School Hostel and the Limits of Institutional Accountability

An NHRC Case Analysis from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

(NHRC Diary No. 1526/IN/2023 | Case No. 3112/24/48/2023)

By Lenin Raghuvanshi

Human Rights Defender

The death of 13-year-old student Priya, a Class VIII student residing in a school hostel in Lucknow, raises grave concerns about child safety in educational institutions, custodial responsibility of schools, and the limits of accountability when investigations remain prolonged and inconclusive.

This article analyses the case as documented and monitored by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) from January 2023 to May 2024.

Case Identification

• NHRC Diary No.: 1526/IN/2023

• NHRC Case/File No.: 3112/24/48/2023

• Incident Category: Murder of Child

• Victim: Student Priya (Class VIII)

• Age / Gender: 13 years / Female

• Institution: SR College / SR Global School Hostel

• Incident Date: 25 December 2022

• Incident Place: S R College, Lucknow

• State: Uttar Pradesh

• Complainant: Lenin Raghuvanshi

• Mode of Complaint: HRCNet / Online

• NHRC Registration Date: 13 February 2023

Allegations and Background

According to the complaint placed before the NHRC:

• Priya, a minor child, was residing in the hostel of SR College / SR Global School

• She was brutally assaulted inside the hostel premises

• The assault resulted in her death

• The complainant alleged serious lapses by school authorities and police, including:

  • Failure to ensure safety of a minor under institutional care

  • Delay and lack of transparency in investigation

  • No immediate arrests, despite the gravity of the offence

The death occurred in a space where the child was under direct custodial control of the institution, invoking heightened standards of responsibility.

Criminal Case Status (as reported to NHRC)

As per reports submitted by the Lucknow Police and the Home Department:

• FIR No.: 16/2023

• Police Station: BKT Police Station, Lucknow

• Section Invoked:

  • Section 302 IPC – Murder

Investigation Details

• FIR registered against unknown persons

• Panchanama of the deceased conducted

• Statements of:

  • Teachers

  • Fellow students

  • Hostel watchmen

  • Doctors

• Call Detail Records (CDRs) of suspected persons (students of the same school) obtained

• Viscera preserved for FSL examination

• Scene of crime inspected

• Investigation transferred to CBCID, Uttar Pradesh

Despite these steps, no arrests were reported up to the time NHRC closed its proceedings.

NHRC’s Intervention and Monitoring

Initial Cognizance

• NHRC took cognizance on 26 January 2023

• Action Taken Report was called from:

  • Commissioner of Police, Lucknow

  • Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh

Subsequent Directions

• 25 July 2023: NHRC expressed concern over the seriousness of allegations and directed submission of a progress report

• Investigation was later transferred to CBCID, acknowledging the sensitive nature of the case

• Additional reports were sought in:

  • September 2023

  • March 2024

Closure of Proceedings

NHRC Order dated 31 May 2024

After considering the material on record, the Commission observed:

• FIR under Section 302 IPC had been registered

• Investigation was underway with CBCID

• Criminal law had been set in motion

The Commission concluded:

“Since criminal law has been set in motion and investigation has been transferred to CBCID, further intervention of the Commission is not required.”

Direction Issued

• The Director General, CBCID, Uttar Pradesh was directed to:

  • Continue investigation of FIR No. 16/2023

  • Act in accordance with the procedure established by law

The case was closed with direction to the authority.

Human Rights Analysis

1. Child’s Right to Life and Safety (Article 21)

A child living in a school hostel is under protective custody. Any harm occurring within such premises constitutes:

• A violation of the right to life and dignity

• A failure of institutional duty of care

The State bears responsibility not only through police action, but also through regulation and oversight of educational institutions.

2. Institutional Accountability Gap

While investigation was transferred to CBCID, NHRC records show:

• No identification of perpetrators at the time of closure

• No visible accountability of:

  • School management

  • Hostel authorities

  • Supervisory officials

Transfer of investigation, without timelines or outcomes, risks diffusing responsibility rather than fixing it.

3. Delay as a Rights Concern

The incident occurred in December 2022. By May 2024:

• Investigation remained inconclusive

• No arrests were disclosed

• The child’s family continued without closure

Delay in cases involving child death weakens evidence, accountability, and public confidence.

4. Limits of NHRC Jurisdiction

This case demonstrates a recurring institutional limitation:

• Once investigation is “in progress,”

• NHRC often defers further monitoring

This procedural closure may be legally justified, but it raises a critical question:

Who ensures urgency, transparency, and accountability in prolonged investigations involving child deaths?

Why This Case Matters

This case is significant because it highlights:

• Vulnerability of children in residential schools

• Gaps between investigation transfer and justice delivery

• Absence of parallel inquiry into institutional negligence

• The need for child-specific accountability frameworks

Conclusion

The death of student Priya is not merely a criminal case—it is a failure of institutional protection. While the NHRC ensured that criminal law was activated and investigation escalated to CBCID, justice remains incomplete without outcomes.

A hostel should be a place of safety.
For a child to die there, and for accountability to remain uncertain, is a matter of deep concern.

Justice for children cannot stop at “investigation is underway.”
It must end with truth, accountability, and reform.

Case Reference

NHRC Diary No. 1526/IN/2023
Case/File No. 3112/24/48/2023

 

A 7-Year-Old Found Naked and Unconscious in Jaunpur: NHRC Monitoring, Police Action, and Delayed Compensation

 

A 7-Year-Old Found Naked and Unconscious in Jaunpur: NHRC Monitoring, Police Action, and Delayed Compensation

(NHRC Diary No. 10249/IN/2024 | Case No. 17032/24/39/2024)

By Lenin Raghuvanshi

Human Rights Defender

The recovery of a 7-year-old minor girl in a naked and unconscious condition in Kerakat, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, in July 2024, represents one of the most disturbing forms of violence against children. While the criminal justice system did respond through arrest and prosecution, the delay in victim compensation and administrative follow-up exposes persistent structural failures in implementing child-protection laws.

This case, currently monitored by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), highlights both institutional response and institutional delay.

Case Identification

• NHRC Diary No.: 10249/IN/2024

• NHRC Case/File No.: 17032/24/39/2024

• Incident Category: Child Rape

• Victim: 7-year-old minor girl

• Incident Date: 01–03 July 2024

• Incident Place: Kerakat, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh

• Complainant: Lenin Raghuvanshi

• Mode of Complaint: HRCNet / Online

• Registration Date: 28 August 2024

Incident as Reported

According to media reports and NHRC records:

• The child went missing during a marriage ceremony

• She was later found naked and unconscious about 400 meters from her home

• Family members immediately dialed 112

• The child’s condition was critical; she was referred to Varanasi for better treatment

• The incident caused widespread panic and outrage in the locality

This incident clearly amounts to aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor, attracting the most stringent provisions of Indian law.

Criminal Case Status

As per the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur:

• FIR No.: 245/2024, PS Kerakat

• Sections Invoked:

  • Section 376AB IPC

  • Sections 5(m) / 6 POCSO Act

• Initially registered against unknown persons

• Four police teams were constituted for investigation

• Accused Raju was identified and arrested on 05 July 2024

• Chargesheet filed:

  • CS No. A-209/24 dated 24 August 2024

• The matter is now sub judice

From a criminal law perspective, police investigation and prosecution progressed promptly.

NHRC’s Role and Intervention

NHRC Cognizance

The NHRC took cognizance of the case based on:

• Media reporting

• Complaint highlighting police inaction and victim vulnerability

• Request for compensation and protection

Key NHRC Directions

Between September 2024 and February 2025, NHRC issued multiple directions to:

• Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur

• District Magistrate, Jaunpur

• Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh

• Director General of Police, UP

Compensation Delay: A Serious Rights Violation

Legal Entitlement

Under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Laxmibai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh Rules, 2015:

• First installment: Within 15 days of FIR

• Second installment: Within 30 days of chargesheet

• Applicable specifically under Section 6 POCSO

Reality on Ground

• Proposal for compensation was uploaded on the portal

• No payment made even after two months

• NHRC noted lack of clarity on:

  • Medical officer’s report upload

  • Administrative follow-up by District Magistrate

NHRC Observation (21 February 2025)

“Payment of compensation was supposed to be made within the prescribed timeline. There is no development thereafter.”

NHRC directed the District Magistrate, Jaunpur to expedite payment and submit compliance within six weeks.

Human Rights Analysis

1. Violation of Article 21

The incident represents a grave violation of the child’s:

• Right to life

• Right to dignity

• Right to bodily integrity

• Right to protection from sexual violence

2. Child Protection Failure

The occurrence during a social function exposes:

• Lack of child safety mechanisms

• Absence of preventive vigilance

• Community-level protection gaps

3. Compensation Delay = Secondary Victimization

Failure to release timely compensation:

• Violates statutory rules

• Aggravates trauma

• Undermines survivor-centric justice

4. Accountability Gap

While police action was relatively swift, administrative inertia by district authorities diluted the relief mechanism meant for child survivors.

Why This Case Matters

This case shows that:

• Justice is not complete with arrest alone

• Victim compensation is a legal right, not charity

• Administrative delay can undo the purpose of progressive laws like POCSO

• NHRC monitoring remains crucial to push state accountability

Conclusion

A child found naked and unconscious is not merely a crime statistic—it is a failure of society, state vigilance, and administrative responsibility. While the criminal law has moved forward, justice remains incomplete until compensation reaches the survivor without delay.

Child survivors cannot wait for bureaucratic timelines.

Justice delayed in relief is justice denied in reality.

Case Reference:

NHRC Diary No. 10249/IN/2024

Case/File No. 17032/24/39/2024