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