PRESUMPTION OF DATE OF STATE OFFICIALS IN CUSTODIAL DEATHS: A LEGAL NECESSITY

AUTHOR – MANYA GROVER, LLM (CRIMINOLOGY) STUDENT AT AMITY UNIVERSITY, NOIDA

BEST CITATION – MANYA GROVER, PRESUMPTION OF DATE OF STATE OFFICIALS IN CUSTODIAL DEATHS: A LEGAL NECESSITY, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 01-08, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

Custodial death refers to the death of a person when he or she is under police or judicial custody. These deaths can be of any type, for example, it can be a violence or torturous, death or death due to negligence or even death due to encounter or police actions. These deaths are not only a violation of human rights but also an abuse of state power which weakness the rule of law and reduces the public trust in police. They say a person in custody is completely dependent on state for survival, but who is there to get the explanation since the individual is under state control, The state has duty to protect life. The word custody itself means the legal, right or duty to take care of someone or something, but when that someone to be taken care of his dead or even injured, how this duty of state could be considered as fulfilled. Such deaths, raise a serious constitutional and human rights concern, especially under article 21. Custodial deaths reflect structural deficiencies in accountability, mechanisms within law enforcement, and custodian institution, in simple words, we can say that existing safeguard fail to prevent abuse or ensure responsibility. The topic of custodial deaths is not only a legal issue, but also a human concern, as it involves the loss of life of individuals while under state protection. The responsibility of safety and life shifts to the state when someone is taken into custody. Their family expects protection, not tragedy in a custody, as it removes personal freedom and creates a power imbalance. Authorities have a legal duty of care, but when a death occurs it damages, public trust and raises serious human rights concerns. Adopting a doctrinal and analytical research methodology, this study relies on a comprehensive examination of constitutional provisions, statutory enactments such as the Indian Penal Code and the Indian Evidence Act, landmark judicial pronouncements, Law Commission reports, and international human rights instruments including the UN Convention Against Torture. The dissertation also incorporates a comparative analysis of legal frameworks in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and the United States, with particular emphasis on mechanisms of independent investigation, custodial safeguards, and accountability structures.A key argument advanced in this study is the necessity of introducing a rebuttable presumption of responsibility against State officials in cases of custodial death. It is argued that such a calibrated shift in the burden of proof is essential to address the structural disadvantage faced by victims and their families. The dissertation contends that a reverse burden, if carefully designed with adequate procedural safeguards, would not violate constitutional guarantees under Articles 20 and 21 but would instead reinforce the substantive protection of fundamental rights. Reference is made to analogous provisions within Indian law where reverse burdens have been upheld in the interest of justice.The study ultimately concludes that custodial deaths are not merely aberrational incidents but are indicative of deeper systemic deficiencies within the criminal justice administration, including lack of transparency, weak enforcement of safeguards, and institutional reluctance to ensure accountability. In response, the dissertation proposes a set of comprehensive reforms, including the introduction of evidentiary presumptions in custodial cases, establishment of independent investigative bodies, mandatory use of technological safeguards such as CCTV surveillance, stricter compliance with arrest and detention procedures, and the urgent enactment of standalone anti-torture legislation.