The story so far:
Nearly six years after the Sattankulam custodial torture deaths of trader P. Jayaraj and his son J. Benicks, the First Additional District and Sessions Court in Madurai will deliver the verdict in the case on March 23, 2026 (Monday).
The horrific crime took place in June 2020 in Sattankulam, Thoothukudi district, Tamil Nadu, during the countrywide COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. It shocked civil society and sparked widespread protests.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court took suo motu cognisance of the crime by the police and passed a slew of directions. The then AIADMK government transferred the probe in the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In all, 10 police personnel were named as accused in the case. One of them died after contracting COVID-19. The CBI has prosecuted nine police personnel.
What happened on the day of the incident?
On June 19, 2020, Jayaraj, who was in his son Benicks’s mobile phone sales and service showroom, was picked up by the police for allegedly violating COVID-19 lockdown rules.
It is said that on June 18, 2020, at night, when a few workers in a nearby shop were waiting for their wages, the police verbally abused them and asked them to leave. Jayaraj heard from the workers about the verbal abuse and had asked them to stay for a few more minutes. This information was passed on by a police head constable to his colleagues.
The next day, in the evening, the police picked up Jayaraj from the shop. On seeing this, Benicks rushed to the Sattankulam police station and appealed to the police to release his father. Jayaraj was verbally and physically abused by the police in the station. Benicks intervened. Later, they were both tortured at the police station by the police personnel the entire night. They sustained serious injuries.
They were detained at the police station. The family members were told that the father and son would be let off the next morning. The family was asked to bring fresh sets of clothes.
However, on June 20, 2020, the traders were taken to the Sattankulam Government Hospital for a medical test. Their blood-soaked clothes were changed. Subsequently, they were produced before the Sattankulam Judicial Magistrate and remanded in judicial custody. They were lodged in Kovilpatti Sub-Jail.
The father and son were taken to the Kovilpatti Government Hospital after they developed health complications.
On June 22, 2020, Benicks’s bleeding became uncontrollable due to a haemorrhage and he became unconscious. He died at the hospital. On June 23, 2020, Jayaraj complained of chest pain. He too died at the hospital. The deaths of the traders triggered massive protests.
Human rights organisations and activists condemned the police brutality. They also condemned the manner in which the Judicial Magistrate had remanded the traders and criticised the medical officer.
What were the directions issued by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, which initiated suo motu proceedings?
On June 24, 2020, a Division Bench of Justices P.N. Prakash (retired) and B. Pugalendhi of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court initiated suo motu proceedings in connection with the custodial torture and deaths case. The court said it would monitor the case and urged the public to remain calm. The court ordered a judicial inquiry.
Even as the High Court initiated suo motu proceedings, the then government transferred the probe in the case to the CBI. Expressing a lack of confidence in the local police, the court directed the CB-CID to take over the investigation into the case till it was formally taken over by the CBI.
The Kovilpatti Judicial Magistrate, in a report, told the High Court that the Sattankulam police did not cooperate with the inquiry and tried to create an intimidating ambience. The report said that right from the time the Judicial Magistrate stepped into the Sattankulam police station, the police officers did not acknowledge the magistrate’s presence and showed an indifferent attitude.
The report said that documents were brought to the Judicial Magistrate in a delayed manner and, when the CCTV footage was assessed, it came to light that it was calibrated in such a manner that every day’s record would get overwritten the following day.
There was no footage of the day of the incident, even though there was adequate storage space in the CCTV system, the report said. However, a woman police constable revealed that the traders were tortured throughout the night.
Taking a serious view of the issue, the High Court directed the Thoothukudi Collector to depute revenue officials to take control of the police station and secure relevant materials. The forensic team was also directed to collect evidence so that it could be protected and handed over to the CBI.
The High Court initiated contempt proceedings against three police personnel—Additional Superintendent of Police D. Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police C. Prathapan, and police constable Maharajan—for not cooperating with the Kovilpatti Judicial Magistrate during the inquiry. The contempt proceedings were later closed after the policemen tendered unconditional apologies.
During the course of the hearing, the judges also spoke to head constable S. Revathy, who spilled the beans on the custodial torture. The court ensured that she was provided adequate protection.
The court took into account the woman head constable’s statement, the medical report, and the Judicial Magistrate’s report, and found prima facie material to book the police personnel involved in the custodial deaths for murder.
While taking a serious view of the case, the High Court also inquired about police well-being programmes.
Only through such programmes could violent propensity in individuals be stymied, the court said, while directing the State government to allocate necessary funds for the continuation of such programmes. The court added that a few bad apples should not be a reason to condemn the entire force.
The High Court recommended that the State government study the possibility of replicating the ‘Magizhchi’ programme, launched by the Chennai City Police, in other districts of Tamil Nadu.
What did the CBI’s chargesheet reveal?
The Central Bureau of Investigation submitted a chargesheet on September 25, 2020, and a supplementary chargesheet on August 12, 2022, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Madurai.
The CBI filed the chargesheet against the then Inspector S. Sridhar; Sub-Inspectors P. Raghu Ganesh and K. Balakrishnan; head constables S. Murugan and A. Saamidurai; and constables M. Muthuraj, S. Chelladurai, X. Thomas Francis, and S. Veilumuthu. Special Sub-Inspector Pauldurai, an accused in the case, died after contracting COVID-19.
The CBI, in its chargesheet, said that Jayaraj and Benicks were subjected to brutal torture by the policemen, who knew that it was sufficient to cause their deaths.
During the investigation, it was revealed that the traders had not violated COVID-19 lockdown rules, the charge on which they had been detained.
The CBI said that the investigation revealed that Jayaraj was picked up from his shop near the Kamaraj statue at 7.30 p.m. on June 19, 2020, and lodged at the Sattankulam police station in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused.
On receiving information, Benicks rushed to the station to enquire about the arrest of his father. He objected to his father being beaten. Following an altercation, the two were wrongfully confined at the police station and beaten to teach them a lesson on how to behave with the police. The torture continued for several hours throughout the night.
Jayaraj and Benicks were made to clean the blood from their wounds. The next morning, a sanitation worker of the Sattankulam police station was made to clean the blood on the floor to destroy evidence. A false case was registered against the two by the policemen, the CBI said.
A “fit for remand” certificate was obtained despite severe injuries. The blood-stained clothes were dumped in the dustbin of the Sattankulam Government Hospital.
Jayaraj and Benicks were limping and unable to sit properly when they were produced before the medical officer. They were subsequently produced before the Judicial Magistrate for remand.
At the Kovilpatti Sub-Jail, the two developed health complications and later succumbed to their injuries at the Kovilpatti Government Hospital.
In the supplementary chargesheet, the CBI submitted a report regarding the examination of video footage available in the case.
Why were multiple extensions of time granted to complete the trial?
While disposing of a petition filed by J. Selvarani, wife of Jayaraj and mother of Benicks, the High Court in March 2021 directed the trial court to complete the trial within six months, observing that “justice delayed is justice denied” and “justice hurried is justice buried”.
However, on multiple occasions, the High Court granted additional time to the trial court to complete the trial.
In 2023, the High Court granted additional time, taking into account that the post of presiding officer was vacant and the case was being heard by the Additional District Judge for CBI cases in Madurai as an additional charge.
In June 2025, during the hearing of a bail petition filed by the prime accused, the High Court was informed that the accused had participated in the trial in person and cross-examined witnesses at length over multiple hearings.
The Judicial Magistrate was cross-examined over 26 hearings from October 16, 2023, to February 2, 2024, and the Investigating Officer was cross-examined over 21 hearings from March 27, 2024, to September 26, 2024. The High Court was told that the intention was to delay the proceedings and prevent the trial court from disposing of the case.
Multiple bail petitions filed by the accused were dismissed by the High Court. The accused are lodged in Madurai Central Prison.
The prime accused, Sridhar, also filed an application before the trial court seeking to turn approver. The plea was dismissed. Selvarani objected to the application, stating that it was intended to delay the trial.
The CBI also opposed the plea, stating that Sridhar was the main conspirator and prime accused. Jayaraj and Benicks were allegedly tortured at his behest when he was the Station House Officer of the Sattankulam Police Station.
What has the trial court said?
With the First Additional District and Sessions Court in Madurai will pronounce the judgment in the 2020 Sattankulam custodial deaths case on March 23, 2026. Judge G. Muthukumaran has posted the matter for judgment.
Source link
#Sattankulam #custodial #torture #deaths #father #son #Tamil #Nadu #Explained
