“Considering the above aspect of the matter, and prima facie conduct of a member of the police force, an institution which occupies a very significant position in society – it would be desirable that the Director General of Police, Assam, may exercise his wise discretion as to whether the respondent no. 7…needs to be proceeded with departmentally also, so as to uphold the prestige and dignity of a vital institution like the Police,” the order dated June 24 read.

The bench further noted that the boy was not even an accused in the murder case for which he had been picked up.

Justices Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Pranjal Das awarded compensation to the victim.

Custodial violence

The case was filed by the victim’s mother, who alleged that her minor son was picked up by police in February 2016 on suspicion in a murder case.

She claimed that he was subjected to custodial violence, admitted to hospital days later with soft tissue injuries and that his education suffered because of the incident.

In its reply, the police admitted that the petitioner’s son was brought to the outpost but it denied in the affidavit that he was subjected to any custodial violence.

Examining the original General Diary entries, medical records and other materials, the High Court noted that the police was not able to dispel the contention that the petitioner’s son was a minor at the relevant time.

The Court also referred to an earlier direction issued during the proceedings ordering registration of a criminal case over the injuries.

Pursuant to that order, police registered a case in 2023 and filed a chargesheet against the police officer in question under Sections 342 and 323 of the IPC, read with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

Since the criminal trial is pending, the bench refrained from making observations on custodial violence.

“We cannot say much about the custodial violence, for not causing any prejudice to the trial against respondent no. 7, and the same would be governed by the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt,” the court said.

However, it held that the available materials were sufficient to establish that prima facie petitioner’s son was detained in police custody and subjected to custodial violence.

Compensation enhanced

• The court noted that the victim had already received Rs 2 lakh under the Assam victim compensation scheme as an interim relief.
• Observing that the minor suffered physical abuse in circumstances indicative of custodial violence, it held that he should receive the maximum compensation of Rs 4 lakh.
• “As the petitioner’s side has already received an amount of Rs 2,00,000 as indicated by order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the Registrar General of this Court – the victim would be liable to receive additional Rs 2,00,000,” the order read.
• The court also reiterated the settled juvenile law jurisprudence that a minor cannot be arrested nor he can be kept in police custody.
• Highlighting the need to uphold the prestige and dignity of a vital institution like the police, the court said it would be appropriate for the Assam Director General of Police to consider whether departmental proceedings should also be initiated against the officer concerned.