Karnataka Court Convicts Four Policemen For 2016 Bengaluru Lock-Up Death

In a significant judgment, the 51st Additional District and Sessions Court, also known as the Special Court for the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), sentenced four police officers to seven years of imprisonment in connection with a lock-up death at Bengaluru’s JB Nagar Police Station in 2016.

Background of the Case

The incident came to light when Mahendra Rathod, suspected of involvement in a theft case, was detained at the JB Nagar Police Station on March 19, 2016. Investigations by the CID revealed that Rathod was assaulted while in police custody, leading to his untimely death.

Convicted Officers

The convicted officers include Head Constable Ejaj Khan and Constables Keshava Murthy, Mohan Ram, and Siddappa Bommanahalli. The CID’s official statement confirmed their involvement in the brutal assault that resulted in Rathod’s death.

Legal Proceedings

The CID initially filed a complaint against the officers under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:

• Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder)
• Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt using dangerous weapons)
• Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt)
• Section 330 read with Section 34 (causing hurt to extort a confession)

The charge sheet was submitted on July 18, 2019, to the First ACMM Court, which found the officers guilty of violating IPC Sections 304, 324, and 330.

Sentence and Fines

The Special Court sentenced the officers to:

• Seven years’ imprisonment under IPC Section 304 (II) and a fine of ₹30,000 each.
• Five years’ imprisonment under IPC Section 330, along with a fine of ₹25,000 each.

The cumulative penalties reflect the gravity of the crime committed under their authority as custodians of law.

Prosecution’s Role

Special Public Prosecutor Krishnaveni played a pivotal role in securing the convictions, presenting compelling arguments and evidence against the accused officers.

Implications

This judgment underscores the judiciary’s firm stance against custodial violence and highlights the importance of accountability within law enforcement. The case serves as a reminder of the critical need for reforms in the police system to prevent such incidents in the future.