Breaking Police Investigation Stalled in Sai Krishna Custodial Death Case

By Usha Rajput

A Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court remains unable to determine how 22‑year‑old Sai Krishna died while in police custody on 23 May 2023, or where his body was disposed of, after recording statements from the victim’s family and the accused Circle Inspector (CI).

What happened
The SIT, formed after the family’s petition alleging custodial homicide, has taken sworn statements from Sai Krishna’s parents, sister and brother‑in‑law, as well as from CI Mohan Reddy, the officer alleged to have overseen the detention. According to the court‑ordered interim report filed on Tuesday, investigators have found “no material evidence linking the accused officers to the alleged custodial killing” and have been unable to locate the body despite a search of the purported disposal site in Kallur village, Kurnool district. The family’s counsel, Adv. Raghavendra Rao, told the court that police have not produced a death certificate or an autopsy report, and that relatives were denied any opportunity to view the body.

Why it matters
Custodial deaths remain a contentious issue across India, with human‑rights groups repeatedly calling for transparent investigations and independent forensic examinations. The inability of the SIT to produce forensic evidence or recover the body hampers the legal threshold for proving homicide, potentially allowing the accused officers to avoid disciplinary or criminal liability. The case also tests the effectiveness of judicial oversight mechanisms that rely on special investigative teams to probe alleged police misconduct.

Background and context
Sai Krishna, a resident of Kurnool district, was arrested on 23 May 2023. The family alleges that he died while in police custody and that his body was subsequently hidden. Following the family’s petition, the Andhra Pradesh High Court ordered the formation of an SIT to conduct an independent inquiry, a step taken in several high‑profile custodial‑death cases in the state. The SIT’s mandate includes locating the body, securing forensic evidence, and determining whether any police personnel were responsible for the death.

In India, the Supreme Court and various High Courts have emphasized the need for prompt autopsies, death‑certificates and the preservation of evidence in custodial‑death investigations. The lack of such documentation in Sai Krishna’s case deviates from established procedural norms, raising questions about record‑keeping and chain‑of‑custody practices within the Andhra Pradesh police force.

Competing claims and uncertainty
The SIT’s interim findings state that investigators are “in the dark” about both the circumstances of death and the whereabouts of the body. The family maintains that police concealed the body, while the accused CI, Mohan Reddy, has not been quoted in the public record. Without an autopsy report or death certificate, the cause of death cannot be medically established, leaving the family’s allegation of homicide uncorroborated by physical evidence.

Human‑rights organisations have voiced concern that the stalled investigation reflects systemic gaps in accountability, yet the SIT has not indicated whether it will recommend disciplinary action against the officers involved. The court’s oversight remains the only external check, and the investigators have signaled that further progress depends on “new leads or forensic inputs,” a phrase that underscores the current evidentiary vacuum.

What to watch next
The High Court will review the SIT’s interim report and may issue further directives, potentially ordering an independent forensic examination or mandating the police to produce any undisclosed records. Any new testimony from police insiders, whistle‑blowers or forensic experts could revive the investigation. Additionally, the family may seek a writ petition compelling the police to produce a death certificate or to disclose the location of the alleged disposal site. Monitoring court filings and any statements from the Andhra Pradesh Home Department will be essential to gauge whether the case moves beyond its present impasse.

Conclusion
The Sai Krishna custodial‑death case illustrates the challenges of investigating alleged police misconduct when key physical evidence—most notably the body and an autopsy report—is missing. While the SIT has fulfilled its procedural step of recording statements, its inability to locate forensic material leaves the case at a stalemate, highlighting broader concerns about transparency and accountability in law‑enforcement investigations in Andhra Pradesh. Continued judicial scrutiny and any emergence of new evidence will be critical to determine whether the family’s allegations can be substantiated and whether the accused officers will face disciplinary or criminal consequences.

Sources
– The Hindu, “Police investigation stalled in Sai Krishna’s custodial death case,” https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/police-investigation-stalled-in-sai-krishnas-custodial-death-case/article71186270.ece

Story synopsis gathered from: The Hindu – National — source