Supreme Court orders SIT probe into tribal man's death in Madhya Pradesh after conflicting allegations

The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the death of 27-year-old Nilesh Adivasi, who reportedly died by suicide weeks after he signed an affidavit claiming that he was pressured into filing a criminal complaint against a man named Govind Singh Rajput [Govind Singh Rajput v. State of Madhya Pradesh].

Shortly after he backtracked from his complaint, Nilesh died by suicide and a fresh case was registered against Rajput in connection with this death under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).

Interestingly, there were two different sets of allegations into Nilesh's death - one by his brother who blamed Rajput and another by his wife who blamed a former Home Minister and his associates.

In view of the above, the Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on Thursday directed the Madhya Pradesh Director General of Police to form a three-member SIT to probe Nilesh Adivasi's death.

The Court ordered that the SIT should be set up within two days and comprise senior police officers from outside Madhya Pradesh to ensure neutrality amid the conflicting accounts of the incident.

The Bench also said the SIT must begin work immediately and examine every angle behind the young man’s death, including those that may not have been part of the ongoing police investigation.

The Court further protected Govind Singh Rajput, an accused in the case, from arrest in the meanwhile.

“In light of different versions which have emerged, we direct that arrest of Govind Singh Rajput, shall be stayed as an interim measure. If the SIT finds incriminating material, the SIT can seek leave of this Court for custodial interrogation. The SIT shall also consider other possibilities that might have led to the unfortunate demise of the victim," the Court ordered.

The Court said that a fresh inquiry was warranted in the matter by officers without local ties. Therefore, the SIT to probe the case is to comprise of the following officers, the Court added:

1. A senior police officer who joined the service directly and has no Madhya Pradesh connections

2. A young IPS officer from outside the state

3. A woman officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

The Court also directed that witness-protection measures be implemented and that no one, particularly tribal witnesses, be subjected to pressure.

In addition to protecting Rajput from arrest, the Court extended interim protection to the brother of the deceased during the investigation.

"No coercive measure shall be taken against brother of deceased so as to enable them to join investigation," said CJI Kant.

The SIT has been asked to complete its probe as early as possible, preferably within a month.

Meanwhile, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has been requested to take up the pending writ petition filed by Nilesh's wife, in which she had sought intervention alleging inaction and bias by the local police.

The Supreme Court yesterday said that the High Court should decide her petition in light of the directions the top court has issued.

The order was passed on a plea filed by Rajput challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's refusal to grant him anticipatory bail in connection with the case filed in connection with Adivasi's suicide.

Nilesh Adivasi had first filed a complaint on July 1 accusing Rajput of caste-based abuse. But a few days later, Nilesh told the Superintendent of Police in a signed affidavit that his complaint was false and had been taken from him when he was intoxicated.

He also told a magistrate that he had no dispute with Rajput and that he had filed the earlier complaint under pressure from people allegedly connected to a local politician.

Nilesh died by hanging later that month. His body was found in his residence on July 25.

In the days following Nilesh's demise, his wife submitted written three complaints on three different dates alleging that her husband committed suicide on account of the torture and harassment meted out to him by a former Home Minister of the State and his associates.

None of her complaints mentioned Rajput. Instead, she pointed to others, alleging that her husband had been coerced into filing the earlier complaint and had faced repeated intimidation afterward.

Despite her statements, the police did not register a case.

She then filed a second complaint on August 3, 2025 and also approached the High Court through seeking registration of FIR and investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to unearth the factors leading to the unnatural death of her husband. Eventually, this led to registration of an FIR.

The brother of the deceased Nilesh, however, gave a different version. In his very first statement, which is claimed to have been recorded by the police, he attributed allegations against Govind Singh Rajput and some other persons being responsible for the unnatural death of his brother.

This led to the police registering a fresh case naming Rajput and invoking provisions related to abetment of suicide and offences under the SC/ST Act.

Rajput then moved the trial court and later the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

After these courts dismissed his plea, he approached the Supreme Court.

He argued that the case against him was registered months after the incident, ignored earlier statements by the deceased and his wife and did not follow proper procedure.

He contended that the case against him was the result of political rivalry.

The Court has stayed his arrest and also ordered a probe by SIT.

Advocate Tanya Agarwal represented Govind Singh Rajput before the Supreme Court.

Corrigendum: An earlier version of this story erroneously reported that Madhya Pradesh Minister Govind Singh Rajput was the accused in this case. The accused is another person bearing the same name. The error has been rectified and is regretted.