The sensational Udayakumar custodial death case has resurfaced after the Kerala High Court, on 27 August 2025, set aside the conviction of five police officers, including two, who were sentenced to death by a CBI court.
Published Sep 07, 2025 | 12:00 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 07, 2025 | 12:00 PM
The CBI is planning to challenge the High Court verdict in the Supreme Court.
Synopsis: A Supreme Court verdict restoring the conviction of the two men in a rape case could provide crucial legal ground for the CBI as it prepares to challenge the Kerala High Court’s acquittal of police officers in the Udayakumar custodial death case.
Even after close to two decades, the shadows of one of the darkest custodial torture deaths still loom large over Kerala.
Udayakumar, a young man beaten to death in custody at the Fort Police Station in Thiruvananthapuram in September 2005, continues to remain a haunting symbol of state brutality.
Justice has been elusive, despite a resolute 74-year-old Prabhavathi Amma, Udayakumar’s mother, spending the better part of her life battling the system for her son’s dignity.
Now, as the case heads to the Supreme Court within the next three weeks, its verdict could shape not just the fate of this mother’s long fight, but also send a powerful message on the culture of custodial violence that refuses to fade.
The sensational Udayakumar custodial death case has resurfaced after the Kerala High Court, on 27 August 2025, set aside the conviction of five police officers, including two, who were sentenced to death by a CBI court.
The division bench of Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and KV Jayakumar pointed to glaring procedural lapses in the CBI probe.
The court found that the agency had converted eyewitnesses into approvers, coerced others to toe its version of events, and presented contradictory witness testimonies.
It further ruled that the CBI had erred in submitting a fresh final report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, while the case was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-3), Thiruvananthapuram.
Conducting a parallel trial before the Special Judge, CBI, Thiruvananthapuram, without jurisdiction, amounted to a “fatal irregularity” and caused “serious prejudice” to the accused, the bench observed.
The High Court stressed that the CBI was ordered to carry out a re-investigation — not a fresh investigation — and the progress of the case could only be overseen by the sessions court already handling it.
Speaking to South First, KP Satheesan, special public prosecutor for the CBI, said the agency would move the Supreme Court within three weeks.
Calling the High Court verdict “erroneous,” he added that a Supreme Court judgment delivered on 1 September in a rape case from Andhra Pradesh would be a key argument in challenging the Kerala High Court’s acquittal order.
According to him, the Udayakumar custodial death case was initially investigated by the local police. During the trial, around 34 witnesses—mostly police personnel—turned hostile, leading to an acquittal.
It was then that Udayakumar’s mother approached the Kerala High Court, which stayed the trial and ordered a CBI probe.
The CBI filed its report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Ernakulam, from where it was committed to the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, and later transferred to the CBI court, which convicted the accused.
The Kerala High Court recently set aside the conviction, citing procedural lapses, including that the CBI report should have been filed directly before the Sessions Court and not the CJM court, and that policemen who turned approvers were not properly challenged.
Satheesh argued that these were not lapses but due procedure, and noted that no objections were raised at any stage until the matter reached the High Court.
Udayakumar’s mother, herself an eyewitness, also has the legal right to challenge the High Court order, and her appeal would carry significant weight. However, financial constraints are reportedly pulling her back.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has set aside a High Court judgment that acquitted two men convicted of rape under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, restoring the trial court’s order sentencing them to life imprisonment.
The case concerned Hare Ram Sah and Manish Tiwari, who were found guilty by the trial court but later acquitted by the High Court on grounds of procedural infirmities, including errors in framing charges, doubts over the victim’s age, lack of proof regarding her abortion, and the trial court’s decision to conduct a joint trial of the accused.
The Supreme Court, however, held that such procedural irregularities cannot invalidate a conviction unless they result in a “failure of justice.”
Citing Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Sanjay Kumar observed that the accused were fully aware of the allegations and had ample opportunity to defend themselves, and that the joint trial had not prejudiced their case.
Stressing that unreasonable doubts and technical lapses should not let culprits escape, the Court reaffirmed the importance of safeguarding both procedural fairness and society’s faith in the justice system.
The court also noted, “no culprit should manage an acquittal based on unreasonable doubts and misapplication of procedure.”
According to legal experts, the Supreme Court verdict restoring the conviction of the two men could provide crucial legal ground for the CBI as it prepares to challenge the Kerala High Court’s acquittal of police officers in the Udayakumar custodial death case.
In both matters, higher courts had overturned trial court convictions citing procedural lapses, but the apex court has now made it clear that technical irregularities cannot be the basis for acquittal unless they cause a “failure of justice.”
This principle directly supports the CBI’s contention that the High Court erred in setting aside the conviction in the custodial death case, where objections were raised over the CBI filing its report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate instead of the Sessions Court and the manner in which approver testimonies were handled.
The CBI argues that these were standard procedures accepted during the trial without challenge, and that the accused had full knowledge of the charges and adequate opportunity to defend themselves.
By stressing that “unreasonable doubts and misapplication of procedure” should not let culprits walk free, the Supreme Court ruling strengthens the CBI’s position that substantive justice must prevail over procedural technicalities, potentially making this a turning point in the case.
On 27 September 2005, Udayakumar, a 26-year-old from Manakkadu, was picked up by the Fort Police along with his friend Suresh Kumar after finding ₹4,020 in his possession.
Suspecting it to be stolen money, three constables—Jithakumar, Sreekumar, and Soman—subjected him to hours of brutal custodial torture inside the station, using canes, iron rods, and GI pipes.
By night, Udayakumar lay battered, and when finally shifted to the Medical College Hospital, doctors pronounced him dead at 11.30 pm.
The case shook Kerala, sparking outrage over custodial violence and the culture of impunity in the police force. Crime No. 704/2005 was registered as an “unnatural death,” but the investigation and trial later established deliberate custodial torture.
A CBI probe led to the prosecution of the five policemen, who were convicted in 2018.
The trial court handed two — K Jithukumar and SV Sreekumar — the death penalty, one of the rarest instances in the state. Sreekumar, however, died during the pendency of appeals.
With the case now moving to the Supreme Court, the Udayakumar case once again stands at a crossroads.
Whether the focus falls on procedural lapses or the pursuit of substantive justice, the verdict will carry weight far beyond a mother’s struggle — shaping how custodial violence is addressed.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
