Sathankulam custodial deaths: How testimonies of 2 women constables sealed the fate of 9 cops

The testimonies of two women police constables - Head Constables Revathy and Beulah Selvakumari - played a crucial role in establishing the sequence of events inside the Sathankulam police station, ultimately sealing the fate of 9 policemen convicted for custodial deaths..They were among the few personnel present inside the station during the relevant period, placing them in a position to attest to the condition of the victims and the events that unfolded in custody..The case concerns the deaths of Jayaraj and his son Bennix, who were taken into custody in June 2020 during the COVID-19 lockdown for allegedly keeping their mobile shop open beyond permitted hours in Sathankulam, Thoothukudi district.The First Additional Sessions Court in Madurai on Monday sentenced all nine police personnel convicted in the Sathankulam custodial deaths case to death. The sentence was pronounced by Judge G Muthukumaran after the Court had, on March 23, found the accused guilty of murder and destruction of evidence.Relying on medical and forensic evidence, the Court found that both victims sustained grievous injuries while in police custody, which led to their deaths. The incident, which began as a minor lockdown violation, triggered nationwide outrage and intensified scrutiny of police excesses.Following intervention by the Madras High Court, the probe was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which filed a detailed chargesheet. The trial lasted over 5 years, with more than 50 witnesses examined before the Court concluded that the offence of murder stood proved.In addition to this, the Court also directed the police personnel to pay a total fine amount of ₹1,00,40,000 collected from the all 9 accused is ordered to be paid as compensation to Selvarani, the wife of Jayaraj and mother of Bennix..According to the court records, Selvakumari was the station writer on duty on the evening of June 19, 2020. She testified to the initial detention of P Jeyaraj and the subsequent arrival of his son, J Bennicks. Her evidence detailed the start of the physical assault, quoting Sub-Inspector Balakrishnan taunting Jeyaraj:“Are you a big rowdy in Sathankulam? You wanted to hit the police? Now hit the police.” [Translated from Tamil]..She further detailed how Inspector Sridhar (A1) emerged from his room to incite the other officers when Bennicks arrived, asking:“He pushed the police. Are you guys just keeping quiet?”.Head Constable Revathy provided a chilling account of the events that continued throughout the night. Her testimony was instrumental in identifying the "rotational" nature of the assault. She described how Inspector Sridhar monitored the violence by the sound of the victims' screams, frequently calling out:“What Murugan? What Bala? No sound is heard?”.Revathy also recalled the Inspector suggesting a change in the method of torture:“Putting them facedown on the table and beating them is like a new track, isn't it? Shall we do another round?”.The indifference to human life was further captured in the words of SI Raghu Ganesh (A3), as recalled by Revathy:“Raghu Ganesh [asked], 'Did the police beat [you]?' The real police beating is only going to happen now.”.Perhaps the most distressing detail regarding the attempt to hide the crime was Selvakumari's testimony that the officers forced a severely injured Bennicks to use his own clothing to wipe away the evidence of their torture:“They told Bennicks to use his own vest to wipe the blood spilled on the floor.”.The Court did not rely on oral testimony alone, it used the women’s accounts to find physical proof. Revathy pointed investigators to the exact spots on the walls and a wooden table where blood had splattered. When DNA analysis matched these samples to Jeyaraj and Bennicks, the defence’s claim that the victims sustained injuries by "rolling on the ground" was scientifically demolished..The Court further detailed how the specific blood splatter locations pointed out by Revathy matched the victims' DNA, sealing the physical link to the police station.Additionally, the judgment noted that Revathy assisted forensic experts in identifying the exact spots within the station where the violence occurred..While the Court did not expressly describe them as “key witnesses,” it treated their evidence as consistent, corroborative and legally reliable. Their depositions were evaluated alongside other prosecution witnesses and the Court recorded that their versions were materially aligned..[Read Judgment]