2005 Kerala custodial death case back in focus as SC admits CBI plea

In a case that once shook public faith in custodial accountability, the Supreme Court has now stepped in to re-examine the acquittal of four accused in a 2005 custodial death case from Kerala . Acting on a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) , the top court has agreed to hear the matter, signaling that the long legal battle is far from over.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notices to the accused, seeking their responses to the CBI’s challenge against the Kerala High Court verdict. The hearing has been scheduled for May 19 , setting the stage for a crucial legal review.

The case revolves around the death of Udayakumar (28) , who was allegedly picked up by police officers in Thiruvananthapuram in September 2005. According to the prosecution, he was subjected to severe custodial violence during interrogation. He was later declared dead at a hospital the same day, with post-mortem findings pointing to serious crush injuries as the cause of death.

Initially, a trial court had convicted five individuals in the case, awarding the death penalty to two of them. However, the Kerala High Court, in its August 2025 judgment, overturned these convictions. It cited major contradictions in witness testimonies , most of whom were approvers, along with significant lapses in investigation , concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. One of the death row convicts had passed away during the pendency of the appeal, leading to abatement of proceedings against him.

The CBI has now moved the Supreme Court, arguing that the acquittal warrants reconsideration. The top court’s decision to entertain the plea brings the focus back on a case that highlights the complex intersection of law, evidence, and custodial accountability .

As the matter returns to judicial scrutiny, the upcoming hearing is expected to revisit not just the facts of the case, but also the broader question — can justice in custodial death cases withstand the test of time, evidence, and procedural lapses?