Published Apr 06, 2026 | 6:43 PM ⚊ Updated Apr 06, 2026 | 6:43 PM
J Beniks (left) and P Jayaraj.
Synopsis: While awarding death to the nine men, Judge G Muthukumaran said the punishment must act as a deterrent to prevent such crimes in the future. He observed that mere life imprisonment would not be sufficient given the gravity of the offence.
The First Additional District Court in Madurai on Monday, 6 April, sentenced to death all nine former police personnel convicted in the 2020 murders of P Jayaraj and his son J Benicks at Santhankulam in the Thoothukudi district.
The court had, on 23 March, found all nine guilty of custodial torture that led to the father-son duo’s death.
Pronouncing the sentence, Judge G Muthukumaran said the punishment must act as a deterrent to prevent such crimes in the future. He observed that mere life imprisonment would not be sufficient given the gravity of the offence.
The convicts in the case are former police personnel, Inspector S Sridhar, Sub-Inspectors P Raghu Ganesh and K Balakrishna, Head Constables S Murugan and A Saamidurai, and Constables M Muthuraj, S Chelladurai, X Thomas Francis and S Veluthu.
The 10th accused in the case, the then Special Sub-Inspector Pauldurai, had died of COVID-19 in August 2020.
“The judgment must reflect the conscience of society,” the judge said, noting that the incident had deeply shocked the collective conscience.
The court held that custodial deaths continue despite Supreme Court guidelines issued in 2011, and therefore, awarding the maximum punishment was appropriate.
Rejecting any distinction among the accused, the judge stated that it was not possible to determine who inflicted more violence, and hence all were equally liable.
Calling it the “rarest of the rare” case, the court sentenced all nine accused to death. In addition to capital punishment, penalties, too, were slapped on the nine convicts.
Besides sentencing Sridhar to death, the court imposed a fine of ₹15 lakh on him. The second accused, Balakrishnan, has been slapped with a fine of ₹84.10 lakh. He will have to serve seven years of imprisonment and an additional year in jail.
The third accused, Ganesh, has been sentenced to death, along with 7 years of imprisonment, two separate terms of 3 years’ imprisonment, one year of imprisonment, and a fine of ₹52 lakh.
Fourth accused, Murugan, has been awarded capital punishment, besides 7 years of imprisonment under one section, 3 years of imprisonment under another section, and a fine of ₹50 lakh.
The fifth accused, Sami Durai, has been sentenced to death, along with 7 years of imprisonment under one section, one year of imprisonment under another section, and a fine of ₹2.25 lakh.
Sixth accused Muthuraj has been sentenced to double death penalty, along with 7 years of imprisonment under two sections, 3 years of imprisonment under one section, one year of imprisonment under one section, and a fine of ₹32 lakh.
During the sentencing proceedings, both the Tamil Nadu government and the Union government submitted reports before the court, seeking stringent punishment.
The State government stated that custodial deaths cannot be tolerated, while the Union government argued that the maximum punishment should be awarded in such cases.
Observing that custodial deaths are among the most heinous crimes, Judge Muthukumar described the case as falling under the “rarest of rare” category — a standard set by the Supreme Court for awarding the death penalty.
The judge noted that the victims were unlawfully detained and brutally assaulted overnight, including being stripped and tortured in front of each other — the father in front of the son, and the son in front of the father. He termed the act inhuman and said it shook the conscience.
Highlighting the abuse of authority, the court observed that those entrusted with protecting the law had instead misused their power. The judge rejected arguments seeking leniency on the grounds of the accused persons’ family circumstances, stating that punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of the crime.
The court also pointed out that, unlike most custodial crimes, this case included CCTV evidence, which played a crucial role in establishing the sequence of events.
“Where there is power, there must be greater responsibility,” the judge remarked, adding that such acts cannot be treated lightly, especially when committed by law enforcement personnel.
He further observed that awarding only life imprisonment in such cases may not serve as a sufficient deterrent.
The court said the incident had wiped out the male backbone of an entire family and described the brutality as unacceptable in a civilised society.
Earlier, while delivering the verdict, Judge Muthukumaran observed that the injuries sustained by Jayaraj and Benicks were unnatural and sufficient to cause death. The court affirmed that the injuries were inflicted by police personnel and could not have been self-inflicted.
The judge noted that the postmortem examination, which was fully videographed, revealed severe internal injuries caused by repeated assault. Despite appearing outwardly minor, the internal injuries indicated sustained and brutal physical abuse.
The CBI chargesheet said that Benicks had told his relatives that he was beaten continuously throughout the night, with intervals of about 10 minutes, and was assaulted over 200 times. The court also recorded that the victims were tied with ropes, suspended, and assaulted, and were also beaten while being made to lie on a table.
The court further observed that the assault was carried out on the instructions of the first accused, Sridhar. It also noted that one of the accused stood outside the police station to monitor if anyone was approaching while the assault was taking place.
In a shocking observation, the court recorded that some police personnel allegedly remarked that they had “found a father and son to practice beating,” indicating the extent of brutality involved.
The court also found that the case initially registered against Jayaraj and Benicks was false. Crucial evidence, including blood-stained clothes worn by the victims, was not properly seized. Instead, police allegedly handed over the clothes to relatives and instructed them to dispose of them, thereby obstructing the investigation.
After examining all the evidence and testimonies, the court concluded that the charges framed by the CBI were proven beyond doubt and held all the accused guilty.
The court has directed the central and state governments to file reports on the health condition, personal details, and salary particulars of the convicted individuals.
On the night of 22 June 2020, news broke out that Benicks had died in custody after being brutally assaulted by the personnel at the Sathankulam Police Station. The next morning, his father, Jayaraj, also succumbed to similar injuries in custody.
It all began on 19 June that year, when Sathankulam police summoned Jayaraj for allegedly keeping his mobile phone accessories shop open beyond the permitted time during the COVID-19 lockdown. He was assaulted in the station.
When his son Benicks went to the police station to question them, he was also taken into custody and allegedly tortured throughout the night. The father-son duo eventually died due to multiple internal injuries.
These policemen were arrested following an inquiry by Judge Barathidasan of the Kovilpatti Criminal Sessions Court and the testimony of Sathankulam Head Constable Revathi.
Initially investigated by the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID), the case was later transferred to the CBI.
Over 100 witness statements were consolidated into 53, and the case is currently being heard by the 1st Additional District Judge (ADJ) at the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
Jayaraj and Selvarani had three daughters and a son. After the deaths, the entire family was forced to leave Sathankulam and relocate to another district.
Benicks’s friends were key witnesses, as they were present outside the police station on the night of 19 June 2020.
