Death Sentence For Nine Policemen: Satankulam Verdict Exposes Tamil Nadu’s Blind Spot

It has been a long and arduous wait for J. Parsi ever since her father and brother were brutally killed in police custody in Satankulam. The two had been taken into custody before their deaths, a case that went on to shock the nation and raise serious concerns about custodial violence.

Six years later, the family sat through an emotionally charged moment in the First Additional District and Sessions Court in Madurai as the verdict was pronounced. When asked days earlier whether they sought the death penalty for the accused, the victims’ relatives had responded with quiet restraint, saying that giving and taking life is the prerogative of the Almighty.

However, presiding judge G. Muthukumaran, terming the crime as falling within the “rarest of rare” category, awarded the death penalty to nine policemen convicted in the case. Such a verdict is exceptionally uncommon in India’s judicial history, marking one of the rare instances where as many as nine individuals have been sentenced to death in a single case.

What unfolded in Satankulam on the evening of June 18, 2020, and in the days that followed, was a deeply disturbing episode that shook not just Thoothukudi district but the entire state of Tamil Nadu. It left an indelible mark on public consciousness, exposing the high-handedness and impunity of those entrusted with protecting citizens, including the most vulnerable.

P. Jayaraj and his son J. Beniks ran a small mobile sales and service shop in the town. On that fateful evening, Jayaraj was taken into custody by the police for allegedly keeping the shop open beyond permitted hours during COVID-19 restrictions. Later, his son Beniks was also detained.

In custody, both were subjected to brutal torture. The following day, they were remanded and shifted to the sub-jail in Kovilpatti. Their condition deteriorated rapidly. Beniks succumbed to his injuries at the government hospital in Kovilpatti on June 22, 2020, and Jayaraj died the next day, June 23.

The incident triggered widespread outrage across Tamil Nadu and beyond, becoming a stark reminder of custodial violence and the urgent need for police accountability.

“If ordinary citizens had committed the same crime, they would have received ordinary punishment. But here, the crime was committed by the police themselves,” observed Judge G. Muthukumaran in his sharply worded verdict.

Drawing parallels with global instances of police brutality, the judge referred to the killing of George Floyd in the United States, where Floyd died after being subjected to public torture by law enforcement—an incident that sparked worldwide protests against racism and police excesses. “Such incidents are occurring globally; this is not the first, nor will it be the last,” the judge noted. He also cited the custodial torture and death of Ajeeth Kumar in Thiruppuvanam as a reminder of similar patterns closer home.

“The act was committed by policemen who were mentally sound, educated, and salaried government employees,” the judgment stated, invoking the metaphor of “the fence eating the crops.” It described the crime as one driven by vengeance: P. Jayaraj was allegedly tortured for questioning his illegal detention, and his son J. Beniks for questioning the detention of his father. The intent, the court held, was to instil fear among the public.

The case took a decisive turn when the Madras High Court suo motu took cognisance and transferred the investigation to the CBI. The court ultimately awarded the death penalty to nine policemen, including Inspector S. Sridhar, Sub-Inspectors K. Balakrishnan and P. Ragh Ganesh, Head Constables S. Murugan and A. Samadurai, and constables M. Muthuraja, S. Chelladurai, X. Thomas Francis, and S. Valimuthu.

A crucial breakthrough came through the testimony of woman police officer S. Revathy, whose deposition confirmed that the father and son were brutally assaulted through the night of June 19, 2020. Her account corroborated CCTV evidence and became a key pillar of the prosecution’s case.

Calling the verdict comprehensive, human rights activist Henri Tiphagne, Executive Director of People's Watch, said it could serve as a strong deterrent against custodial torture. While he personally opposes the death penalty, he acknowledged that the judge had acted within the legal framework in invoking it under the “rarest of rare” doctrine.

Tamil Nadu has recorded a troubling number of custodial deaths. According to data presented in Parliament, 490 deaths were reported in judicial or police custody in the state between 2016–17 and 2021–22—among the highest in southern India. In comparison, Uttar Pradesh recorded the highest number nationally, with 2,580 such deaths during the same period.

Tiphagne also criticised the response of the ruling DMK, alleging inaction on police violence. He pointed out that 26 custodial deaths were reported in Tamil Nadu in the past five years and described the silence of political leadership and police authorities as “alarming.” He expressed hope that the present judgment would reignite a serious and informed debate on human rights violations by law enforcement agencies.

A recent study by Lokniti-Centre for the Study of Developing Societies reveals troubling attitudes within the police system towards the use of “third degree” methods. When personnel were asked whether it is acceptable for the police to use violence against suspects of serious offences for the greater good of society, nearly two-thirds—about 63 per cent—agreed.

Significantly, the survey found that this support for the use of force was not confined to any one level of the hierarchy. Approval of violence against suspected offenders remained consistent across ranks, pointing to a deeper, systemic acceptance of coercive practices within policing rather than an isolated or rank-specific phenomenon.

The incident in Satankulam occurred during the previous regime. However, even after five years of rule by the DMK, critics argue that little has changed on the ground. Erring police personnel, often with scant regard for the rule of law, continue to resort to third-degree methods, leading to serious injuries and, in some cases, deaths of suspects.

Against this backdrop, the recent judgment of the court in Madurai—notable for its severity and timing just ahead of the polls—is being seen as a potential turning point. Human rights activists hope it will revive public debate on custodial violence and compel the political leadership to take firm, deterrent measures to curb police excesses.