A two-judge panel from the Bombay High Court confirmed on Monday a special court’s 2022 ruling that mandates eight police officers to face trial for the murder linked to the 2014 custodial death of Agnelo Valdaris, who was 25 years old at the time of his death.
The High Court remarked, “At first glance, it appears that Agnelo was subjected to severe physical assaults while in unlawful police custody, resulting in various injuries assessed as being between 12 to 96 hours old.” The judges asserted that the officers were “part of this incident” and found no justification to label the special court’s order as unlawful or incorrect.
Valdaris, along with three others, including a minor, was apprehended by the Wadala Government Railway Police on the night of April 15, 2014, in connection with a theft investigation. The police reported that Valdaris died on April 18 after allegedly being struck by a train while attempting to flee custody around 11:30 am.
However, the co-detainees later claimed they had endured physical and sexual abuse during their detention. Those implicated in the case include Senior Police Inspector Jitendra Ramnarayan Rathod, Assistant Police Inspector and Investigating Officer Archana Maruti Poojari, Police Sub Inspector Shatrughan Chuddappa Tondse, Head Constable Suresh Bapu Mane, and constables Ravindra Sukhdev Mane, Vikas Maruti Suryavanshi alias Ganya, Satyajeet Ajit Kamble, and Tushar Kaval Khairnar.
During the proceedings, Justices Ajay S Gadkari and Shyam C Chandak commenced their judgment by quoting author Lois McMaster Bujold, stating, “The dead cannot cry out for justice; it is a duty of the living to do so for them.”
The court highlighted the significant ambiguities surrounding whether Valdaris’s death was a result of homicide or an accident, pointing out inconsistencies regarding his movements between police stations. “We cannot find any valid explanation for the suspicious movement of Agnelo during the night,” the judges noted.
The Supreme Court had directed the High Court to resolve the matter after two of its single-judge benches issued conflicting rulings regarding the special court’s September 2022 order.
The High Court also pointed out inconsistencies in the medical evidence, indicating a lack of clarity regarding discrepancies between the medical report and the postmortem findings, particularly concerning the timing of the injuries found on Agnelo’s body shortly after his arrest.
Furthermore, the court expressed astonishment at the “suspicious movement” of Agnelo to Kurla Railway Police Station at 1:10 am on April 18, 2014, where he was allegedly held in a lock-up and then reportedly returned to Wadala at 7:30 am without any corresponding record in the Kurla lock-up register.
It was also noted that witnesses were initially hesitant to come forward due to threats, with the court stating, “The intimidation of these witnesses contributed to the delay in revealing the torture they experienced while in police custody.”
The bench mentioned that Valdaris had communicated his mistreatment to a doctor, prompting concerns among the accused officers about potential legal repercussions, leading them to attempt to control him.
“However, the circumstances surrounding Agnelo’s death, which were known to the police, did not favor the accused,” the court remarked.
The judges concluded that a murder case could be established, supporting the argument that Valdaris might have run toward the train in an attempt to escape further abuse.
Initially, the State CID conducted the investigation, but it was later handed over to the CBI in June 2014 following High Court instructions. The CBI submitted a chargesheet that did not include murder charges but invoked assault provisions and sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, given that one of the detainees was a minor.
During the hearing, Advocate Rizwan Merchant, representing Rathod, contended that the trial court had “completely failed” to recognize the lack of evidence for murder. Meanwhile, CBI lawyer Kuldeep Patil also argued that “no evidence emerged indicating a prima facie case” for murder under the Indian Penal Code.
Conversely, advocates Yug Mohit Chaudhry and Payoshi Roy, representing Leonard Valdaris, the victim’s father, asserted that the evidence indicated illegal detention, torture, and threats.
After reviewing all arguments, the High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, allowing murder charges to be filed against the eight police officers involved in the case.
