District Judge Report Confirms Sivaganga 'Custodial Death', Madras High Court Asks CBI To File Chargesheet Expeditiously

The Madras High Court was on Tuesday informed that report of the District Judge, appointed by it to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the death of a 29-year-old temple guard in Sivaganga, revealed that the case was one of custodial torture and custodial death. 

Noting that the State government has already transferred the probe to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete directed the Union Government to appoint an investigating officer within a week and directed that the chargesheet be filed as soon as possible, by August 20.

The Court also directed the investigating officer to collect all the material evidence that were submitted to the Registrar (Judicial) at Madurai bench of the High Court and to conduct an effective investigation without any unduly delay.

It further ordered the Director General of Prosecution to ensure that the final postmortem report of the deceased is filed before the concerned court within one week.

The Court also asked the Inspector General (South Zone, Madurai District), the Superintendent of Police (Madurai Rural) and the District Collectors of Madurai and Sivagangai to provide necessary assistance to the investigating agency, including vehicle and manpower.

State Government has been directed to provide necessary protection to the witnesses under the Witness Protection Scheme. 

The case relates to the death of Ajith Kumar was working as a temporary security guard at the Madapuram Bhdrakali Amman Temple at Thirupuvanam, when he was taken by the police for questioning in connection with a theft case. Two women had complained, stating that 10 sovereigns of good jewelry had gone missing from their car, which they had asked Ajith to park.

Ajith was taken to the Thiruppuvanam police station and was released after questioning. Later, on the same day, he was detained again by a six-member Special Team headed by Mr. Kannan, Head Constable, and 5 others. As per the statement of eyewitnesses, Ajith and others were brutally beaten up by the police officials. Ajith collapsed, and though he was taken to the hospital, he died. 

Previously, the Court had criticised the incident, calling it a "police organised crime" where the State was killing its own people. The court also directed District Judge S John Sundarlal Suresh, to conduct an enquiry into the custodial death and submit a report by 8th July.

As per the order of the court, the District Judge had conducted a preliminary inquiry confirming that the incident was one of custodial death. 

The State informed the court that the investigation had already been transferred to the CBI and a Government Order had also been issued in this regard. However, the counsel for the petitioner urged the Court to instead form a Special Investigation Team to investigate the case.

One petitioner is Deputy Secretary of AIADMK advocates wing. Another is a practicing lawyer who helped the family in the case.

Advocate Henri Tiphagne, appearing for the petitioners submitted that previously, the CBI had been entrusted with the investigation into the Sterlite case, but even after 7 years there was no progress.

The Court however responded that when the State itself had transferred the probe to the CBI, it would not be proper for the court to ask the State to continue investigating it.

It added that even if a SIT was to be appointed, there was a probability that the allegations might come up in the future claiming that the SIT was under the control of the State. 

"When the State has taken a decision to hand it over to the CBI, will it be proper for the court to continue investigating it? CBI is an independent agency. Tomorrow, presume that an SIT investigates. Again, an allegation might come up that the SIT was under the control of the State," Justice Subramaniam orally remarked. 

The Court assured the petitioners that it would fix a time limit for completing the investigation and would continue to monitor the case till then. When the petitioner's counsel stressed that the court continue to monitor the case even after the filing of the chargesheet, Justice Maria remarked that it would be a judicial overreach. 

The petitioners then urged the court to transfer the probe in the FIR registered in connection with the alleged theft of gold jewellery to the CBI. Noting that there was every justification to transfer the FIR to the CBI to ensure complete justice, the court was inclined to transfer the probe. The State also informed the court that it would issue necessary GO transferring the probe in the concerned FIR to the CBI.

The court thus asked the Investigating Officer to complete the probe as expeditiously as possible and file the chargesheet. 

Case Title: E Marees Kumar v. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

Case No: WP(MD) 17949 of 2025