Lahra Bai Tamre v. State of Chhattisgarh
“Custodial Death Cover-Up Rejected: Supreme Court Hands Probe to CBI and Orders Rs. 25 Lakh Interim Compensation”
TL;DR
A man arrested under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act for possessing 6 litres of raw Mahua liquor died in custody, and the post-mortem recorded multiple antemortem injuries with head injury from a hard and blunt object as the cause of death. The Chhattisgarh High Court found he had been subjected to custodial violence but awarded only Rs. 1 lakh and gave no direction for an FIR or investigation. The Supreme Court found the State's explanation for its inaction to be a "cover-up story", held that the facts clearly warranted immediate registration of an FIR, and directed the CBI to register a regular case and investigate. It also ordered the State to pay Rs. 25,00,000 to the family as interim compensation within four weeks, leaving the final quantum to be decided later, and listed the matter again on 13 October 2026.
The Bottom Line
When a person dies in police or jail custody and a judicial inquiry has already pointed to a head injury, the State cannot hide behind procedural excuses. The Supreme Court refused to accept the claim that the police had no occasion to register a case because the inquiry report was never received, called that claim patently false, and transferred the investigation to the CBI. The family of the deceased receives Rs. 25 lakh now as interim relief, with the final compensation to be decided in the same proceedings.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
FIR Registered Against the Deceased
FIR No. 47 was lodged at Police Station Seepat, Bilaspur, under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 for possession of 6 litres of raw Mahua liquor; the deceased was arrested by Head Constable Uma Shankar Rathore.
FIR Registered Against the Deceased
FIR No. 47 was lodged at Police Station Seepat, Bilaspur, under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 for possession of 6 litres of raw Mahua liquor; the deceased was arrested by Head Constable Uma Shankar Rathore.
Referred to CIMS Hospital
After remand to Central Jail, Bilaspur, the deceased was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, owing to deterioration in his health.
Referred to CIMS Hospital
After remand to Central Jail, Bilaspur, the deceased was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, owing to deterioration in his health.
Death in Custody and Request for Judicial Inquiry
The deceased died at about 6:00 a.m. The post-mortem recorded antemortem injuries and head injury from a hard and blunt object as the cause. The Jail Superintendent wrote to the District and Sessions Judge seeking a judicial inquiry.
Death in Custody and Request for Judicial Inquiry
The deceased died at about 6:00 a.m. The post-mortem recorded antemortem injuries and head injury from a hard and blunt object as the cause. The Jail Superintendent wrote to the District and Sessions Judge seeking a judicial inquiry.
Section 176 CrPC Inquiry Report Submitted
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, submitted a report opining that the death appeared to have been caused by complications arising from the head injury.
Section 176 CrPC Inquiry Report Submitted
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, submitted a report opining that the death appeared to have been caused by complications arising from the head injury.
High Court Awards Rs. 1 Lakh
The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 76 of 2024 only to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000 compensation, with no direction for an FIR or investigation.
High Court Awards Rs. 1 Lakh
The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 76 of 2024 only to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000 compensation, with no direction for an FIR or investigation.
Notice Issued by Supreme Court
The Supreme Court issued notice on the special leave petition filed by the wife and children of the deceased.
Notice Issued by Supreme Court
The Supreme Court issued notice on the special leave petition filed by the wife and children of the deceased.
Court Calls for Explanation from Senior Officials
The Court noted the State's counter affidavit disclosed no steps for an FIR or investigation and that compensation appeared inadequate, and directed the DGP and Principal Secretary (Home) to appear.
Court Calls for Explanation from Senior Officials
The Court noted the State's counter affidavit disclosed no steps for an FIR or investigation and that compensation appeared inadequate, and directed the DGP and Principal Secretary (Home) to appear.
DGP, DG (Prisons) and Principal Secretary (Home) Appear
The senior officials appeared virtually; the Court found their explanations for inaction unconvincing.
DGP, DG (Prisons) and Principal Secretary (Home) Appear
The senior officials appeared virtually; the Court found their explanations for inaction unconvincing.
Supreme Court Directs CBI Investigation
The Court directed the CBI to register a regular case and investigate the custodial death, and ordered Rs. 25,00,000 as interim compensation payable within four weeks.
Supreme Court Directs CBI Investigation
The Court directed the CBI to register a regular case and investigate the custodial death, and ordered Rs. 25,00,000 as interim compensation payable within four weeks.
The Story
The petitioners are the wife and children of the late Shravan Suryavanshi @ Sarvan Tamre (the deceased). He was apprehended in connection with FIR No. 47 dated 18 January 2024, lodged at Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915. According to the FIR he was found with three 2-litre bottles of raw Mahua liquor, a total of 6 litres valued at Rs. 1,200. He was arrested by Head Constable No. 195, Uma Shankar Rathore, taken to the police station, and after remand lodged in Central Jail, Bilaspur.
On 21 January 2024, owing to deterioration in his health, he was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, where he died at about 6:00 a.m. on 22 January 2024. The post-mortem noted six injuries, including a 4 x 2 x 0.5 cm laceration on the occipital scalp with swelling and bleeding, swelling above the right wrist, swelling on both legs, bleeding from the tip of the penis and contusions on the right thigh and nape of the neck. The cause of death was recorded as cardio-respiratory arrest due to complications of a head injury caused by a hard and blunt object. The injuries were opined to be antemortem, the scalp laceration being apparently within one day old, the wrist swelling within two days, and the two contusions 2 to 6 days old.
Since the death occurred in custody, the Jail Superintendent wrote on 22 January 2024 to the District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, seeking a judicial inquiry. The matter was assigned to a Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, who held an inquiry under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and submitted a report dated 22 July 2024 opining that the death appeared to have been caused by complications arising from the head injury.
When no action followed against anyone responsible and no compensation was paid, the petitioners filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 76 of 2024 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, seeking Rs. 50 lakh compensation and a direction to prosecute the officers responsible. By judgment dated 3 October 2024 the High Court held that the deceased had been subjected to custodial violence and died as a result, but awarded only Rs. 1 lakh (with 9% interest on default) and gave no direction for registration of an FIR or investigation.
The petitioners came to the Supreme Court. Notice was issued on 8 January 2026. On 28 July 2026 the Court noted that the State's counter affidavit did not disclose any steps taken to lodge an FIR or investigate, and that the compensation appeared completely inadequate, and it required the Director General of Police and the Principal Secretary (Home) to appear. On 4 August 2026 the Director General of Police, the Director General (Prisons) and the Principal Secretary (Home) joined the hearing virtually and, according to the Court, took an intransigent and indifferent stance. The post-mortem report was placed on record for the first time only with the State's additional affidavit filed after the Court's order of 28 July 2026.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Rank inaction in investigating the custodial death
The petitioners, the wife and children of the deceased, complained of the complete inaction of the respondent authorities in investigating the death in custody, despite a judicial inquiry having found that the death appeared to be caused by complications from a head injury. They sought direction to file prosecution on the basis of the material submitted, including the marg intimation.
Compensation of Rs. 1 lakh is inadequate
The petitioners sought Rs. 50,00,000 as compensation for their rehabilitation following the custodial death of the deceased, who was 34 years old and the sole breadwinner of the family. They contended that the High Court's award of Rs. 1 lakh was meagre despite its own finding of custodial violence.
The post-mortem findings contradict the jail medical record
The petitioners alleged that they were able to lay hands on the post-mortem report for the first time only after the State filed it with its additional affidavit. That report recorded multiple external injuries and head injury as the cause of death, in contrast to the jail medical report that recorded cardiopulmonary arrest with aspiration pneumonitis and alcoholic withdrawal.
Respondent
State of Haryana
No occasion to register a case as the inquiry report was not received by the police
The Director General of Police told the Court that since the Section 176 CrPC inquiry report had not been received by the police, there was no occasion to register a criminal case to investigate the death. The Director General (Prisons) offered an explanation for not forwarding the report to the police, and the Principal Secretary (Home) exhibited a similar approach.
Compensation already granted by the High Court
The State of Chhattisgarh relied on the High Court's judgment of 3 October 2024 granting Rs. 1,00,000 within eight weeks, with the Director General of Jail directed to ensure payment. The Court recorded that the State did not dispute the High Court's finding that the deceased was the sole breadwinner and died an unnatural death from violence in custody.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Court began by noting that the deceased had been arrested for an offence punishable with imprisonment up to three years and yet died in State custody allegedly due to injuries suffered during that custody. It traced the High Court's approach, finding that the High Court had accepted custodial violence but granted a pittance and issued no direction for an FIR or investigation. The Court then examined the conduct of the State at the hearings of 28 July and 4 August 2026. It found the stance of the senior officers, including the Principal Secretary (Home), the Director General of Police and the Director General (Prisons), to reflect a disturbing disregard of the statutory procedure governing custodial deaths. The explanation that no action was taken because the inquiry report had not been served on the police was rejected as a cover-up, since the State had itself informed the High Court of the pending Section 176 inquiry and the report was on the record. The Court also compared the jail medical report, which recorded cardiopulmonary arrest with aspiration pneumonitis and diagnosed alcoholic withdrawal and delirium tremens without mentioning any injury, with the post-mortem report, which recorded multiple injuries and a head injury from a hard and blunt object, and concluded that a clear attempt had been made to mislead the inquiry. Having regard to the age of the injuries, particularly the scalp laceration within one day and the contusions 2 to 6 days old, the possibility that the injuries were sustained over the period of custody could not be ruled out. The Court held that an FIR and thorough investigation were warranted, directed the CBI to take up the case, and awarded interim compensation of Rs. 25 lakh.
the stance of blissful ignorance taken by the senior officers of the State of Chhattisgarh, including the Principal Secretary (Home); the Director General of Police and the Director General (Prisons), is sacrilegious and reflects a disturbing disregard of the statutory procedure governing custodial deaths.
Para 14
Records the Court's strong disapproval of the senior officials' conduct and frames the failure as a breach of the statutory procedure for custodial deaths.
The explanation offered that neither any police action nor any disciplinary action was taken against the persons responsible because the judicial inquiry report had not been served upon the police officials is a cover-up story and an attempt to pull the wool over the Court's eyes.
Para 15
Rejects the State's excuse for not registering a case and ties the inaction to an attempted cover-up.
The facts, therefore, clearly warranted immediate registration of an FIR and a thorough investigation into the circumstances leading to the death of Shri Shravan, which, the State authorities conveniently and deliberately tried to cover up.
Para 17
States the core finding that an FIR and investigation were mandatory on these facts, based on the age and pattern of the injuries.
the ends of justice require that the investigation into the circumstances leading to the custodial death of Shri Shravan be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation and that all officials found responsible for the custodial violence, upon completion of the investigation, be proceeded against and prosecuted in accordance with law.
Para 18
The operative direction transferring the investigation to the CBI with a clear mandate to prosecute those responsible.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The family of the deceased receives Rs. 25 lakh as interim compensation within four weeks, in place of the Rs. 1 lakh awarded by the High Court, and obtains a CBI investigation into the custodial death. The final amount of compensation remains open for determination in the same petition.
Directions Issued
- The Director, CBI, shall forthwith ensure registration of a regular criminal case in relation to the custodial death of Shri Shravan Suryavanshi @ Sarvan Tamre
- The investigation shall be entrusted to a senior CBI officer and conducted expeditiously, with the Investigating Officer's report placed before the Court on the next date of hearing
- The conduct of the State officials in failing to take appropriate steps after the judicial inquiry report shall be examined and made part of the investigation
- The Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh shall transmit the complete records of the case to the Director, CBI through a special messenger within a week
- The State of Chhattisgarh shall pay Rs. 25,00,000 as interim compensation into the bank account of petitioner No. 1, Smt. Lahra Bai Tamre, within four weeks; account details to be furnished by the petitioners' counsel within seven days
- A copy of the order shall be electronically transmitted to the Principal Secretary (Home), the DGP, the DG (Prisons) of Chhattisgarh and the Director, CBI
- The matter is listed again on 13 October 2026
Key Legal Principles Established
Where a High Court finds that a person died due to violence in custody, a nominal monetary award without directing an FIR and investigation does not do justice to the case.
Senior police, prison and home department officials cannot avoid registering a case in a custodial death by pleading that a judicial inquiry report under Section 176 CrPC was never served on the police.
The age of injuries recorded in a post-mortem report can indicate that injuries were sustained over the period of custody, which by itself calls for registration of an FIR and a thorough investigation.
Where State authorities appear to have tried to cover up a custodial death, the Supreme Court may entrust the investigation to the CBI so that it is independent and credible.
The conduct of officials who failed to act on a judicial inquiry report is itself a matter to be examined in the investigation.
Interim compensation can be awarded at an early stage while the final quantum is reserved for later adjudication.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If someone dies in police or jail custody, a judicial inquiry is held, and the findings of that inquiry must lead to action, not be filed away.
- The family of a person who dies in custody can approach the High Court and the Supreme Court for an independent investigation and for compensation.
- Even a minor offence, such as possessing 6 litres of country liquor, can never justify violence in custody.
- Courts can order interim compensation immediately, without waiting for the final decision, when the State does not dispute the basic facts.
- A post-mortem report that records injuries can contradict a jail medical record; families should insist on obtaining the post-mortem report and inquiry report.
- When State authorities delay or hide material, the Supreme Court can summon the most senior officials to explain.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 226
Constitution of India
“Power of High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.”
Relevance: The petitioners invoked Article 226 before the High Court, which held that compensation can be awarded in public law for violation of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court found the relief granted under that jurisdiction inadequate.
Article 21
Constitution of India
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Relevance: The High Court referred to the loss of human life as the loss of a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution, and the compensation in public law for custodial death rests on this guarantee.
Statutory Provisions
Section 176
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
“Provides for an inquiry by a Magistrate into the cause of death in certain cases, including death in police custody.”
Relevance: A Judicial Magistrate First Class held the inquiry and submitted the report dated 22 July 2024, on which the Supreme Court relied to reject the State's plea that it had no occasion to register a case.
Section 34(2)
Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915
“Offence under which FIR No. 47 of 2024 was registered against the deceased; the Court noted the offence was punishable with imprisonment up to three years besides fine.”
Relevance: The relatively minor nature of the offence underscores the gravity of a death in custody for such an offence.
Related Cases & Precedents
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa
similar(1993) 2 SCC 746
Recognised the award of compensation in public law by constitutional courts for a custodial death as a remedy for violation of the right to life, distinct from private law remedies.
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
similar(1997) 1 SCC 416
Laid down guidelines on arrest and detention to prevent custodial violence and affirmed compensation for custodial deaths.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Kannada
Lahra Bai Tamre v. State of Chhattisgarh - Kannada Explanation
Tamil
Lahra Bai Tamre v. State of Chhattisgarh - Tamil Explanation
Telugu
Lahra Bai Tamre v. State of Chhattisgarh - Telugu Explanation
Hindi
Lahra Bai Tamre v. State of Chhattisgarh - Hindi Explanation
English
Lahra Bai Tamre v. State of Chhattisgarh - English Explanation
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.