The Sattankulam custodial torture deaths of a father and son in Tamil Nadu | Explained
The story so far:
Nearly six years after the custodial torture of trader P. Jayaraj and his son J. Benicks were murdered in Sattankulam, the First Additional District and Sessions Court in Madurai will pronounce the verdict in the case on March 23, 2026 (Monday).
The gruesome crime took place in Sattankulam in Tamil Nadu’s Thoothukudi district in June 2020, during the nationwide COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. It shocked civil society and led to widespread protests.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court took suo motu cognizance of the crime committed by the police and issued a set of directions. The then AIADMK government handed over the investigation in the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). It was stated that a total of 10 police personnel were defendants in the case. One of them died after contracting Covid-19. CBI registered a case against nine police personnel.
What happened on the day of the incident?
Jayaraj, who was at his son Benicks’ mobile phone sales and service showroom on June 19, 2020, was caught by the police for allegedly violating COVID-19 lockdown rules.
It was stated that on the night of June 18, 2020, the police verbally harassed several workers waiting for their salaries in a nearby shop and asked them to leave. Jayaraj heard the verbal abuse from the workers and asked them to stay for a few more minutes. This information was conveyed by a police chief to his colleagues.
The next day in the evening, the police took Jayaraj from the shop. Seeing this, Benicks rushed to Sattankulam police station and appealed to the police for his father’s release. Jayaraj was verbally and physically abused by the police at the police station. Benicks intervened. Both of them were later tortured by police personnel at the police station throughout the night. They suffered serious injuries.
They were detained at the police station. Family members were told that the father and son would be released the next morning. The family was asked to bring new clothes.
However, on June 20, 2020, the traders were taken to Sattankulam Government Hospital for medical testing. His blood-soaked clothes were changed. They were later produced before the Sattankulam Magistrate and remanded in judicial custody. They were lodged in Kovilpatti Sub Jail.
Father and son were taken to Kovilpatti Government Hospital after they experienced health problems.
On June 22, 2020, Benicks suffered uncontrollable bleeding and lost consciousness. He died in the hospital. On June 23, 2020, Jayaraj complained of chest pain. He also died in the hospital. The deaths of the merchants sparked major protests.
Human rights organizations and activists condemned police brutality. They also condemned the manner in which the Magistrate arrested the traders and criticized the medical officer.
What were the instructions given by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, which initiated the suo motu proceedings?
On June 24, 2020, the Madurai Bench of Justices of the Madras High Court PN Prakash (retired) and B. Pugalendhi initiated suo motu proceedings in connection with the custodial torture and death case. The court said it would follow the case and called on the public to remain calm. The court decided to conduct a judicial investigation.
Even as the Supreme Court initiated suo motu proceedings, the then government handed over the investigation in the case to the CBI. Expressing distrust in the local police, the court directed the CB-CID to take over the investigation into the case until the case is formally taken over by the CBI.
In his report, the Kovilpatti Magistrate told the Supreme Court that the Sattankulam police were not cooperating with the investigation and were trying to create an intimidating environment. The report stated that from the moment the Magistrate stepped into the Sattankulam police station, the police officers did not acknowledge the magistrate’s presence and displayed an indifferent attitude.
The report stated that the documents were delivered to the Criminal Court of Peace with a delay, and when the CCTV footage was examined, it was revealed that each day’s record was calibrated to be deleted the next day.
The report stated that although there was sufficient storage space in the CCTV system, there was no footage from the day of the incident. However, a female police officer revealed that the traders were tortured throughout the night.
Taking the issue seriously, the Supreme Court directed the Thoothukudi Collector to depute revenue officers to take control of the police station and secure relevant materials. The forensic team has also been instructed to collect evidence so that it can be preserved and handed over to the CBI.
The High Court initiated contempt proceedings against three police personnel (Additional Police Inspector D. Kumar, Deputy Police Inspector C. Prathapan and constable Maharajan) for not cooperating with the Kovilpatti Judicial Magistrate during the investigation. The insult case was closed after the police apologized unconditionally.
During the hearing, the judges also met chief police officer S. Revathy, who revealed the details of the custodial torture. The court ensured that he was provided with adequate protection.
The court took into account the statement of the female police chief, her medical report and the report of the Magistrate and found prima facie evidence for the arrest of the police personnel involved in the deaths in custody due to murder.
Taking the case seriously, the Supreme Court also investigated police welfare programs.
While the court directed the state government to allocate necessary funds for the continuation of such programmes, it said that the tendency towards violence in individuals can be curbed only through such programmes. The court added that a few bad apples should not be a reason to condemn the entire force.
The Supreme Court has advised the State government to examine the possibility of replicating the ‘Magishchi’ program launched by the Chennai City Police in other parts of Tamil Nadu.
What did the CBI chargesheet reveal?
The Central Bureau of Investigation filed a charge sheet on September 25, 2020 and a supplementary charge sheet on August 12, 2022, before the Chief Magistrate in Madurai.
CBI filed charges against the then Inspector S. Sridhar; Sub-Inspectors P. Raghu Ganesh and K. Balakrishnan; chief police officers S. Murugan and A. Saamidurai; and police officers M. Muthuraj, S. Chelladurai, X. Thomas Francis and S. Veilumuthu. Special Sub-Inspector Pauldurai, one of the accused in the case, died after contracting COVID-19.
In its criminal complaint, the CBI said that Jayaraj and Benicks were subjected to brutal torture by the police who knew it would lead to their deaths.
During the investigation, it was revealed that the traders did not violate COVID-19 lockdown rules, the charge for which they were detained.
The CBI said investigation revealed that Jayaraj was picked up from his shop near the Kamaraj statue at 7.30 pm on June 19, 2020 and taken to Sattankulam police station as part of a criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused.
After receiving information, Benicks rushed to the police station to inquire about his father’s arrest. He objected to his father being beaten. After an argument, the two were wrongfully taken to the police station and beaten to teach them a lesson on how to behave towards the police. The torture continued for several hours throughout the night.
Jayaraj and Benicks were made to clean the blood from their wounds. The next morning, a cleaner at Sattankulam police station was asked to clean the blood from the floor to destroy evidence. CBI said a fake case was registered against the duo by the cops.
Despite serious injuries, a “suitable for detention” certificate was obtained. The bloody clothes were thrown in the dustbin of Sattankulam Government Hospital.
When Jayaraj and Benicks were brought before the paramedic, they were limping and unable to sit properly. They were then brought before the Criminal Judgeship of Peace with a request for arrest.
The duo developed health complications at Kovilpatti Sub Jail and later succumbed to their injuries at Kovilpatti Government Hospital.
In the supplementary chargesheet, the CBI submitted a report on review of video footage available in the case.
Why were multiple extensions granted for the trial to be completed?
The Supreme Court, while considering the petition filed by Jayaraj’s wife and Benicks’ mother J. Selvarani in March 2021, observed that “justice delayed is justice denied” and “justice rushed is justice buried” and directed the trial court to complete the case within six months.
However, the Supreme Court many times granted additional time to the trial court to complete the hearing.
In 2023, the Supreme Court granted extension considering that the post of chief minister was vacant and the case was being heard as additional charge by the Additional District Judge for CBI cases in Madurai.
In June 2025, during the hearing of the bail petition filed by the lead accused, the High Court was informed that the accused had personally attended the hearing and cross-examined the witnesses at length in multiple hearings.
The Magistrate was cross-examined in 26 hearings from 16 October 2023 to 2 February 2024 and the Investigating Officer was cross-examined in 21 hearings from 27 March 2024 to 26 September 2024. The High Court was told that the purpose was to delay the trial and prevent the trial court from deciding the case.
Many bail requests of the defendants were rejected by the Supreme Court. The accused are lodged in Madurai Central Jail.
Prime accused Sridhar also approached the trial court seeking approval. The claim was rejected. Selvarani objected to the application, stating that it was intended to postpone the case.
CBI also opposed the plea stating that Sridhar was the main conspirator and prime accused. Jayaraj and Benicks were allegedly tortured on his orders when he was the Station House Officer of Sattankulam Police Station.
What did the Supreme Court say?
The First Additional District and Sessions Court in Madurai will announce the verdict in the 2020 Sattankulam custodial deaths case on March 23, 2026. Justice G. Muthukumaran decided the matter.
