As per case facts, the petitioner's husband died after allegedly being assaulted by police officials during an enquiry related to a parking dispute. The petitioner sought directions for a specialized ...
W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.08.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE P. MURUGAN
W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026
Ayyammal
... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Principal Secretary to the Government,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai.
2. The Secretary to the Government,
Home (Police) Department,
St.George Fort, Chennai.
3. The District Collector,,
Office of the Collectorate Building,
Madurai District..
4. The Dean, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.
5. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai.
6. The Inspector of Police,
Keeraithurai Police Station, Madurai City,
(In Crime No. 470 of 2026).
1/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026
7. The Inspector of Police,
Chinthamani Police Station, Madurai City.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4
th
Respondent to conduct Post Mortem for deceased husband
(i.e)Paramasivam by a Team of three Senior Professors from the
Forensic Department of Madurai, Theni and Sivagangai Government
Medical College Hospital under Full Video coverage with the help
of Scientific Officer consequently directing the 5
th
respondent to
preserve the CCTV Footage of the Chinthamani Police Station I.e.,
7
th
respondent on 18.07.2026 to 20.07.2026 in the light of the case in
Cr.No.470 of 2026 on the file of the 5
th
respondent police within
time frame as fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner:Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed
For R1 to R4:Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Advocate General
Assist by
Mr.A.Sivasubramanian
Additional Advocate General
For R5 to R7:Ms.V.Moushica
Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side)
*****
2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026
O R D E R
The relief sought for in this writ petition is that to direct
the 4
th
Respondent to conduct Post Mortem on the body of the
deceased (i.e) Paramasivam, husband of the petitioner, by a Team of
three Senior Professors from the Forensic Department of Madurai,
Theni and Sivagangai Government Medical College Hospital under
full video coverage with the help of Scientific Officer, consequently
directing the 5
th
respondent to preserve the CCTV Footage of the
Chinthamani Police Station / 7
th
respondent from 18.07.2026 to
20.07.2026 in connection with the Cr.No.470 of 2026 on the file of
the 6
th
respondent police.
2.In support of the facts narrated in the writ petition,
the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
and her husband had a vehicle parking issue with their neighbour,
Malathy and her husband, due to which, there was an altercation
between two groups. The said Malathy had filed a complaint against
3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026
the petitioner and her husband before the 7
th
respondent police
station and the same was registered in Cr.No.379 of 2026. For the
same incident, the petitioner has given another complaint before the
same police station against Malathy and the same was registered in
Cr.No.404 of 2026.
3.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that in connection with the complaint given by the said
Malathy, the 7
th
respondent police has enquired the matter on
19.07.2026 in the police station. During that course of enquiry, the
police officials viz., Vijayakumar, Inspector of Police, Jaikumar, Sub
Inspector of Police, Anand, Constable and two other police officials
attached to the 7
th
respondent police station assaulted the deceased
with the hand and legs with shoe. Thereby, the husband of the
petitioner fainted in the police station itself and admitted in the
Hospital. After taking treatment, he was discharged from the
Hospital. Thereafter, on 05.08.2026, he was admitted in the
Government Hospital. Due to the injuries sustained by her husband,
4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026
the Doctors advised to go for surgery. Thereafter, her husband was
admitted in Velammal Hospital, Madurai on 11.08.2026. On
14.08.2026, the Doctor declared him as Brain dead and thereafter, on
16.08.2026, he died in the said Hospital itself. Having the police
officials assaulted the petitioner's husband on 19.07.2026, he died on
16.08.2026. In this regard, the petitioner filed a complaint before
the 6
th
respondent police and the same was registered in Cr.No.470
of 2026.
4.Having suspicious over the death of the deceased,
the petitioner seeks a direction to conduct Post Mortem by a Team of
three Senior Professors from the Forensic Department of Madurai, Theni
and Sivagangai Government Medical College Hospital, with full Video
coverage, in addition to preserve the CCTV Footage of the Chinthamani
Police Station from 18.07.2026 to 20.07.2026, for the purpose of
conducting investigation in Cr.No.470 of 2026.
5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026
5.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the first prayer sought for in the
writ petition that to conduct Post Mortem on the body of deceased
husband by a Team of three Senior Professors from the Forensic
Department of Madurai, Theni and Sivagangai Government Medical
College Hospital is not at all required, since the Dean, Madurai Medical
College has no control over the Medical College Hospitals at Theni and
Sivagangai. Further, there is no lock-up death or custodial death. The
deceased was enquired by the 7
th
respondent formally in connection with
Cr.No.379 of 2026 and he was not arrested. As per own statement of the
petitioner, her husband had sustained injuries on his own and admitted in
different Hospitals and later, died. Hence, the police officials are no way
connected with the death of the deceased. However, the complaint given
by the petitioner has been registered by the 6
th
respondent police in
Cr.No.470 of 2026 and the Post Mortem would be conducted by the
Senior Doctor and the entire post mortem would be videographed for the
purpose of further investigation to ascertain the cause of death.
6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026
6.The learned Additional Advocate General further
submitted that as far as the prayer with regard to preserve the CCTV
footage of the 7
th
respondent police station from 18.07.2026 to
20.07.2026 is concerned, the said Police station viz., Chinthamani Police
Station is recently bifurcated from the 6
th
respondent police station
during December, 2025, therefore, CCTV has not been installed sofar.
Therefore, CCTV footage is not available in the said police station as
requested by the petitioner.
7.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that if that is so, whether the CCTV footage is installed or not,
to be ascertained from the physical inspection conducted by any one of
the Court Commissioner appointed by this Court. He further submits
that, whenever such kind of incident happened, the police officials may
remove or destroy the footages from the police station, in order to escape
from the clutches of law.
8.The learned Additional Advocate General further
submitted that since the petitioner has made a complaint on suspicion, to
7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026
avoid any controversy in the investigation, the Assistant Commissioner,
Therkkutheru, Madurai has requested the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Melur to conduct inquest, in order to get a clear picture. He further
submitted that the RDO, Melur has conducted inquest on the dead body
on 16.08.2026 itself and the dead body was handed over to the Medical
Officer for conducting post mortem. However, the post mortem is yet to
be commenced.
9.His submission is recorded.
10.The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
decision of Division Bench of this Court in RM.Arun Swaminathan Vs
Principal Secretary to the Government and others in WP(MD) No.78 of
2019, dated 28.09.2020, in which, this Court has issued comprehensive
directions how to conduct post mortem in a case of lock-up death or
custodial death. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the
directions No.6, 7 and 8 issued by this Court in paragraph No.51 of the
said decision, which is extracted as follows:
8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026
“51. In view of the above, the following directions
are given while disposing of the writ petition:
(i)......
(vi) There shall be a direction to the
respondents to videograph post-mortems whenever a
request is made by the relatives or friends of the
deceased.
(vii) There shall be a notice in the hospitals
especially in the mortuaries, dissection halls
informing that there will be videographing of post-
mortem in case of request apart from advertising in
the newspaper that at the request of relatives,
videographing of post-mortem could be done
(viii) All important points in the mortuaries as
well as in the dissection halls, CCTV cameras shall
be placed and and shall be operational at all times.
(ix) ...”
11.The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon
the decision of the Court in Santosh Vs District Collector, Madurai and
others in WP(MD) No.12608 of 2020, dated 02.12.2020, in which, the
9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026
directions given by the Division Bench have been referred by the learned
Single Judge. In the said decision, this Court has issued directions to
conduct post mortem for the second time under Phase I to VI. Referring
these decisions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in
this case, the post mortem has to be conducted by a Team of three Senior
Professors from the Forensic Department.
12. However, the learned Additional Advocate General
contended that the later decision relied upon by the learned counsel for
the petitioner relates to a case where a post-mortem examination was
sought to be conducted for the second time. In the present case, the
matter pertains to conducting the post-mortem examination for the first
time. Hence, it is submitted that the said decision is not applicable to the
facts of the present case.
13.The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that only due to the assault made by the police personnel, the
deceased died, not at once, after 25 days. He further submitted that based
on the complaint given by the said Malathy, the deceased was called for
10/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026
enquiry on 19.07.2026 and he attended the enquiry. Therefore, the
deceased was at the custody of the 7
th
respondent police on that day.
During interrogation, the police officials assaulted the deceased and they
took the deceased to a private Hospital and gave first-aid treatment.
After that the police officials left the deceased. On the next day, ie.,
20.07.2026, the deceased was admitted in the Government Hospital.
Therefore, the deceased was under the custody of the 7
th
respondent
police on 19.07.2026. Hence, the provision under Section 196(2) of
BNSS has to be invoked and the Jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate has to
be ordered to conduct inquest to know the cause of death, in addition to
the enquiry of Revenue Divisional Officer.
14.The learned Additional Advocate General submitted
that the deceased was not under the custody of police official. The
deceased was died in the private hospital on 16.08.2026, after the alleged
enquiry on 19.07.2026. Therefore, there is no requirement to conduct
inquest by the Jurisdictional Magistrate, as per Section 196(2) of BNSS.
11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026
15.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it
is seen that the complaint given by the petitioner was registered in Cr.No.
470 of 2026 on 16.08.2026. The contents in the FIR reveal that due to
the assault made by the police officials at the 7
th
respondent police station
on 19.07.2026, the deceased was taken to Government Rajaji Hospital,
Madurai on 05.08.2026, ultimately, he was declared dead on 16.08.2026.
16. Section 196 (2) of BNSS runs as,
Where, (a) any person dies or disappears; or (b)
rape is alleged to have been committed on any woman,
while such person or woman is in the custody of the
police or in any other custody authorised by the
Magistrate or the Court, under this Sanhita in addition
to the inquiry or investigation held by the police, an
inquiry shall be held by the Magistrate within whose
local jurisdiction the offence has been committed.”
17. In view of the above facts, there is a prima facie as
per the FIR that the deceased was interrogated by the police officials at
12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026
the 7
th
respondent police and during that time, there was assault made by
the police officials. Hence, enquiry has to be conducted by the
jurisdictional Magistrate as per Section 196(2) of BNSS in order to know
the cause of death and this Court is inclined to pass the following orders:
a)The learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai, who is
having jurisdiction over the 7
th
respondent police is
ordered to conduct inquest/inquiry on the dead body of
the deceased viz., Paramasivam at Government Rajaji
Hospital, Maduri and record the statements from the
required witnesses and prepare a report about the cause
of death. After the enquiry, the dead body should be
handed over to the Dean, Government Hospital,
Madurai for conducting post-mortem.
b)The Deans, Government Hospital, Madurai, Sivagangai,
Theni are directed to nominate a Senior Professor each
from the Forensic Department to conduct joint
Postmortem on the dead body, with the assistance of
Scientific Officer from the Forensic Department.
13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026
c)The entire post mortem should be videographed and it
should be kept under the sealed cover and send to the
concerned Court.
d)Mr.Aairam K. Selvakumar, Advocate is appointed as
Court Commissioner to inspect the Chinthamani
Police Station/7
th
respondent and report whether CCTV
has been erected or not and whether there is any
sanction order for installation of CCTV. He is further
directed to take some photographs or videographs and
collect some documents in this regard. The 7
th
respondent police is directed to extend co-operation for
the inspection to be conducted by the Court
Commissioner. The Court Commissioner is directed to
complete his inspection and file a report before this
Court within a period of two weeks from the date of this
order.
14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026
e)The Court Commissioner voluntarily expressed his
willingness to undertake the aforesaid work without any
remuneration.
f)Since the dead body is kept in the Mortuary from
16.08.2026, the Dean, Government Hospital, Madurai is
directed to nominate Senior Professors in consultation
with the Deans of the Government Hospitals at
Sivagangai and Theni and proceed with the post mortem
at the earliest.
g)The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai is directed to
proceed to the Hospital and conduct inquest on the
morning of 18.08.2026 itself.
h)The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai is directed to
permit the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai to avail
Official Duty (OD) for conducting the inquest and
recording the statements of the concerned witnesses.
15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026
18.With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands
disposed of.
Index :Yes / No 17.08.2026
Internet:Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
Note :Issue order copy on today (17.08.2026)
PNM
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai
2. The Principal Secretary to the Government,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai.
3. The Secretary to the Government,
Home (Police) Department, St.George Fort, Chennai.
4. The District Collector,,
Office of the Collectorate Building,
Madurai District.
5. The Dean,
Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.
6. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Madurai.
16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026
7. The Inspector of Police,
Keeraithurai Police Station,
Madurai City, (In Crime No. 470 of 2026).
8. The Inspector of Police,
Chinthamani Police Station,
Madurai City.
9.Mr.Aairam K Selvakumar
10.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026
DR.P.MURUGAN, J.
PNM
ORDER IN
W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026
17.08.2026
18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In a significant ruling concerning the transparency and accountability of law enforcement, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has issued crucial directions for a Custodial Death Inquiry and specific Post-Mortem Procedures in W.P. Criminal (MD) No.4723 of 2026. This pivotal judgment, now available on CaseOn, underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring justice, especially in cases where allegations of police brutality leading to death are made. The case, heard by DR. JUSTICE P. MURUGAN and dated 17.08.2026, involves Ayyammal (Petitioner) against multiple government and police officials, seeking a detailed investigation into her husband's demise.
The petitioner, Ayyammal, approached the Madras High Court with serious allegations regarding the death of her husband, Paramasivam. She sought two primary reliefs:
The core issue revolved around the suspicious circumstances surrounding Paramasivam's death following an alleged assault by police officials during an inquiry. The petitioner claimed that her husband, Paramasivam, was called for an inquiry at the Chinthamani Police Station on 19.07.2026 regarding a vehicle parking dispute. During this inquiry, police officials allegedly assaulted him, leading to his fainting. He was subsequently treated at a private hospital, discharged, but later required further hospitalization. After being declared brain dead on 14.08.2026, he passed away on 16.08.2026 in Velammal Hospital. The petitioner lodged a complaint (Cr.No.470 of 2026) alleging police culpability in his death.
The legal principles guiding this case primarily stemmed from Section 196(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which mandates a magisterial inquiry when a person dies or disappears while in police custody or any other custody authorized by a Magistrate or Court. The petitioner also cited previous Division Bench judgments of the Court, including RM.Arun Swaminathan Vs Principal Secretary to the Government and others (WP(MD) No.78 of 2019, dated 28.09.2020) and Santosh Vs District Collector, Madurai and others (WP(MD) No.12608 of 2020, dated 02.12.2020). These precedents emphasize the importance of videographing post-mortems upon request, placing CCTV cameras in mortuaries, and conducting post-mortems by a team of senior professors in suspicious death cases.
The learned Additional Advocate General, representing the respondents, contended that a team of three Senior Professors for post-mortem was unnecessary, as there was no lock-up or custodial death. They stated that Paramasivam was only formally enquired, not arrested, and his death was not directly connected to the police. Furthermore, it was argued that the Chinthamani Police Station, having been recently bifurcated, lacked CCTV cameras, rendering the request for footage impossible. The RDO, Melur, had already conducted an inquest on 16.08.2026, and the body was awaiting post-mortem by a senior doctor, which would be videographed.
However, the Court meticulously examined the petitioner's FIR and found a prima facie case suggesting that Paramasivam was interrogated and assaulted by police officials on 19.07.2026. This led the Court to conclude that the deceased was, for all practical purposes, under the "custody" of the 7th respondent police during that period. This crucial interpretation activated the provisions of Section 196(2) BNSS, mandating a magisterial inquiry in addition to any police investigation or RDO inquest. It is important for legal practitioners and students to understand how CaseOn.in's 2-minute audio briefs simplify the analysis of such complex rulings, providing quick insights into the Court's rationale and legal interpretations.
The Court also addressed the contention regarding the absence of CCTV footage. While the respondents claimed no CCTV was installed, the petitioner's counsel argued that police might remove or destroy footage in such incidents. Recognizing the need for transparency and independent verification, the Court decided to appoint a Court Commissioner to physically inspect the police station.
Based on its analysis, the Madras High Court issued a detailed set of directives to ensure a fair and transparent investigation:
The original court order details a writ petition filed by Ayyammal, seeking specific directions for the post-mortem of her deceased husband, Paramasivam, and the preservation of CCTV footage from a police station. The petitioner alleged that her husband died due to police assault during an inquiry, even though he was not formally arrested. The respondents denied custodial death and claimed no CCTV footage was available. The Court, interpreting the circumstances as "custody" under Section 196(2) BNSS, ordered a judicial magistrate's inquest, a joint post-mortem by a team of senior forensic professors with videography, and the appointment of a Court Commissioner to verify the presence and status of CCTV cameras at the police station. The order also expedited the inquest and post-mortem procedures.
This judgment serves as a critical precedent and an invaluable read for legal professionals and students for several reasons:
All information provided in this article is for informational and educational purposes only, based on the public court document. It does not constitute legal advice, and readers should not rely on it as such. For legal advice regarding specific situations, consultation with a qualified legal professional is essential.
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....