A young man died in police custody. Serious injuries were found on his body. The post-mortem examination brought crucial facts to light. Questions were raised over the police version of events. Eventually, the matter reached the Supreme Court.
The court responded strongly. It ordered a CBI investigation, warned that action would be taken against the officials responsible, and directed the government to provide an interim compensation of ₹25 lakh to the deceased’s family. The court also made it clear that the CBI must submit its investigation report by October 13.
This is the case of Shravan, a young man who died in custody in Chhattisgarh.
But what about Andhra Pradesh?
From the alleged custodial death of Sai Krishna to the Gangamma lockup death, and the incident involving Kranthi Kumar, which has been described as suicide, several questions have surfaced.
Yet the larger question remains: Why does there appear to be a difference in the speed and intensity with which such cases are investigated?
In Chhattisgarh, the body was recovered, a post-mortem was conducted, injuries were documented and the matter reached the Supreme Court.
In Andhra Pradesh, allegations have been made that in the Sai Krishna case, the body was disposed of in such a manner that even the ashes were allegedly unavailable for proper examination.
If that allegation is true, serious questions arise: Where are the physical evidence and forensic clues? How can a post-mortem establish the cause of death? And how can an investigation conclusively determine what happened?
Is the truth being buried before the investigation can even begin?
Shravan in Chhattisgarh: What Exactly Happened?
Shravan was arrested by Chhattisgarh police on January 18, 2024, on allegations of possessing six litres of mahua liquor. He was booked under the Excise Act.
He was subsequently taken into custody and transferred to Bilaspur Central Jail. After his health deteriorated, he was admitted to the CIMS hospital on January 21. He died while undergoing treatment the following morning.
But the story did not end there.
A post-mortem examination reportedly found serious injuries on Shravan’s body. Doctors identified a significant injury to the back of his head, along with serious injuries to his neck and thigh.
According to a Sakshi report, the post-mortem findings indicated that cardio-respiratory failure resulted from complications caused by a head injury allegedly inflicted by a hard object.
That raised serious questions about what had happened while Shravan was in custody.
A man entered police custody and died. Injuries were found on his body. The medical examination produced important evidence.
Naturally, questions were raised about the role of the police.
Custodial Violence: Supreme Court’s Strong Response
The Supreme Court reportedly reacted strongly to the matter.
The court expressed anger over allegations that the custodial death was being concealed and questioned the police version of events. It warned that officials responsible for custodial violence would face action.
The court also ordered a CBI investigation into the matter.
It directed that the deceased’s family be given ₹25 lakh as interim compensation and made it clear that the CBI should place its investigation report before the court by October 13.
This is where the larger question begins.
If allegations surrounding a custodial death can lead to Supreme Court intervention and a CBI investigation in one state, what level of transparency and accountability should be expected when similar questions arise in another state?
Sai Krishna in Andhra Pradesh: Was the Evidence Lost?
Now consider the allegations surrounding the Sai Krishna case in Andhra Pradesh.
There have been allegations that Sai Krishna died while in custody. One of the most serious issues surrounding the case concerns the handling of his body.
In the Chhattisgarh case, the body was available. A post-mortem was conducted. Injuries were identified. Medical evidence became part of the investigation.
But allegations in the Sai Krishna case suggest that the body was disposed of in a manner that left no body, and allegedly not even ashes, available for examination.
If that is established, several fundamental questions arise.
How can a post-mortem be conducted?
How can injuries be documented?
How can the precise cause of death be established?
And without physical evidence, how can an investigation conclusively determine what happened?
This is why demands for a full and independent investigation into the Sai Krishna case deserve serious consideration.
The central question should not be who the deceased was.
The central question should be: What happened to him?
Gangamma Lockup Death and the Kranthi Kumar Case
The issue does not end with the Sai Krishna case.
Questions have also been raised over the alleged lockup death of Gangamma.
Similarly, questions have been raised about the incident involving Kranthi Kumar, which has been described as suicide.
When such cases are repeatedly pushed aside without satisfactory answers, what remains with the public?
Only one question:
What really happened?
Whenever a person dies while in custody, the circumstances of that death must be independently examined.
Whether the person was an accused, a suspect or a convicted offender is secondary to the basic principle that the state has a duty to protect the life of a person in its custody.
Even if someone is accused of a crime, the police have the authority to investigate the allegations.
They do not have the authority to take the law into their own hands.
An accused must be punished by a court of law not allegedly beaten to death in police custody.
That is a fundamental principle of constitutional governance.
Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh: Is Justice Being Viewed Through a Political Lens?
This is where the political debate begins.
When a custodial death occurs, should questions about the victim’s caste, political affiliation or criminal background determine how seriously the incident is treated?
Should the circumstances of a person’s death be pushed aside because the deceased was allegedly involved in a crime?
A person being accused of an offence does not mean that their constitutional right to life disappears.
The accused should be tried by a court. The police cannot become the judge and punishment cannot become an act of custodial violence.
Yet there is criticism that in some cases in Andhra Pradesh, discussions about custodial deaths are diverted toward the deceased’s background, criminal cases, caste or political connections rather than focusing on the circumstances of the death itself.
That raises uncomfortable questions:
Does justice change depending on the caste of the deceased?
Does the law change depending on the caste of the accused officer?
The answer in a constitutional democracy must be no.
Media Narratives and the Question of ‘Training’
Another interesting aspect of the debate concerns the media narrative surrounding police conduct.
If a custodial death in one state leads to suggestions that police officers need better training or should learn procedures from police forces in other states, another question naturally follows:
Who actually needs training the police, or the political narrative surrounding the incident?
A person dying in police custody is not a minor administrative issue.
If a crime has occurred, it must be investigated as a crime regardless of where it happened, which government is in power or which political party is involved.
If the Supreme Court demands accountability in one state over a custodial death, why should similar allegations elsewhere be treated differently?
This is not merely a political question.
It is a question of rule of law and equal accountability.
If the Body Is Found, Evidence Can Speak. What If There Is No Body?
The Shravan case demonstrates the importance of physical evidence.
The body was recovered. A post-mortem was conducted. Injuries were documented. Medical findings became important evidence. The Supreme Court intervened and ordered a CBI investigation.
The lesson is simple:
When evidence exists, hiding the truth becomes more difficult.
But what happens if allegations that the body itself was disposed of are true?
Where is the evidence?
Where is the post-mortem?
Where are the injury records?
Where is the forensic evidence?
How can the precise cause of death be established?
Therefore, the key question in the Sai Krishna case should not be “Who was he?”
It should be:
“What happened to him?”
The same principle applies to the Gangamma case and the Kranthi Kumar incident. If there are genuine questions regarding custodial treatment, police conduct or the circumstances of death, those questions should be answered through an independent and transparent investigation.
One Lockup Death, Two States: Where Is the Difference?
Consider the contrast.
Chhattisgarh
Custodial death allegations → Post-mortem → Injuries identified → Supreme Court intervention → Strong observations → CBI investigation → Warning of action against officials → ₹25 lakh interim compensation → CBI report by October 13
Andhra Pradesh
Questions over Sai Krishna’s death → Questions over Gangamma’s alleged lockup death → Questions surrounding Kranthi Kumar’s reported suicide → Yet several questions remain unanswered
So where is the difference?
Is it in the law?
Is it in the investigation?
Is it in political will?
Or is it in the way the narrative is presented?
Whoever Dies in Custody, Justice Must Be the Same
A person in custody may be an accused. He may be a suspect. He may even be a convicted criminal.
But none of that gives the police the right to violate his fundamental right to life.
The standard must therefore be the same in every custodial death.
Do not look at the caste of the deceased. Look at the crime.
Do not look at the caste of the accused. Look at responsibility.
Do not look at the political party. Look at the truth.
Do not look at the propaganda. Look at the evidence.
The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Shravan case once again highlights this fundamental principle.
If a transparent investigation is possible in one state, why should similar allegations in Andhra Pradesh not receive the same level of scrutiny?
A body can speak through a post-mortem.
Evidence can speak through an investigation.
And an honest investigation can reveal who is responsible.
But if the evidence itself disappears, the investigation becomes much more difficult.
And when investigations become weak, cases can lose their direction and the truth can remain buried.
The Questions That Still Need Answers
The questions are therefore straightforward:
What happened to Sai Krishna in Andhra Pradesh?
What is the truth behind the alleged Gangamma lockup death?
What really happened in the Kranthi Kumar case?
If there are doubts surrounding these cases, why should there not be an independent investigation?
Ultimately, the principle is simple:
If the law is the same for everyone, justice must also be the same for everyone including those who die in police custody.
The question is not whether the deceased was a criminal, a political supporter, or belonged to a particular caste.
The question is whether a person who was in state custody died under circumstances that require investigation.
And if there are unanswered questions, the public deserves answers.
The real question is not who the victim was. The real question is what happened to him and whether the truth will ever come out.
