NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, INDIA which human rights violations are committed with impunity under the shields of “uniform” and “authority within the four walls of a police station, lock-up and prison, where the victims are totally helpless”. 4.7 The Commission has issued various guidelines in this regard. One of such guidelines is that a death in custody has to be reported to the Commission within 24 hours. Though all custodial deaths may not be crimes or the results of custodial violence or medical negligence, it is important that no assumption is made without thorough enquiry and analysis of reports like inquest report, post mortem reports, initial health screening report, magisterial enquiry report etc. Compliance of the guidelines of the Commission by the State authorities, therefore, plays a crucial role in quick disposal of the cases relating to custodial deaths. However, it has been seen that some deaths are reported after considerable delay or not reported at all, and also in many cases the reports are forwarded to the Commission only after issuance of conditional summons to the authorities concerned. C. Important Illustrative Cases Custodial deaths (Covering judicial custody, police custody, para-military/defence forces custody) 1. Death of a convict prisoner Sujan Bagdi, aged 22 years, in the custody of District Correctional Home, Howrah, West Bengal, (Case No. 1452/25/9/2013-JCD) i. The Commission received intimation from the Office-in-Charge, PS Howrah, West Bengal regarding the custodial death of a convict prisoner Sujan Bagdi, aged 22 years, in the custody of District Correctional Home, Howrah, West Bengal. ii. In response to the Commission’s directions, the requisite reports were received. The inquest report revealed a black mark on the neck and throat on the body of the deceased. The post-mortem examination report indicated one oblique non-continuous ligature mark around the neck. In the viscera examination report, no poison was detected. However, the cause of death was given as “due to ante mortem hanging”. The magisterial enquiry concluded that it appears from the post-mortem and the statement of the doctor who conducted autopsy that the death was caused by ante mortem hanging. iii. The Commission referred the matter to a Forensic expert on the panel of the Commission who opined that it does not appear to be a case of hanging. It may be a case of strangulation or even throttling (by someone else), which is homicidal in nature. iv. The Commission observed that the deceased convict Sujan Bagdi was in the care and custody of the State and the State was responsible for providing him adequate and timely treatment. But due to negligence and carelessness in providing timely treatment to the deceased by the Jail authorities, he died. For this lapse, the State is vicariously liable to make reparations to the next-of-kin of the deceased convict, Sujan Bagdi. ANNUAL REPORT 2018-19 35