The custodial injury of Edberg Pereira at Margao police station, the swift suspension of the PSI handling the case, and the subsequent claim by South Goa SP Tikam Singh Verma that the injury was a result of a fall caused after the victim lost balance, have opened a Pandora’s box, with the focus now shifting completely on the police.
Edberg was brought to the Margao police station after reportedly creating a scene at Navelim in an inebriated condition on October 22. The mother alleged that her son was bound by chains and struck with a weapon by a police officer at the station. Edberg subsequently underwent brain surgery on Tuesday, with doctors stating that the injuries were severe and could result in paralysis on the left side.
While the South SP acted swiftly and suspended the PSI, questions arose over his claim on Wednesday that the victim had fallen after losing balance at the police station. Earlier on Tuesday, SP Tikam mentioned that the PSI was suspended for causing harm to the victim. There is a subtle change in the versions between Tuesday and Wednesday, which is suspicious.
Moreover, the police's second account of what happened—implying Edberg lost balance and hurt himself—opens the door to disbelief. The immediate suspension of PSI for "causing hurt" suggests clearly that, prima facie, the police have admitted the assault. If the fall is not from an assault or a deliberate act of violence, then why was the officer suspended in the first place?
Furthermore, the police claim of “a fall after losing balance” sounds hollow when one looks at the initial medical observation. Doctors pointed to severe brain injury, with chances of paralysis due to internal bleeding. This raises yet another question: How could a “mere fall” cause such serious, impactful injury? Transparency in this context is crucial; the public deserves clarity on what actually transpired within the police station.
Moreover, it is the bounden duty of the police to ensure the safety of an accused, in this case Edberg, during the time he is in their custody. Even if an accused is brought in a drunken state and acts hostile, due protocols are laid down in handling such cases. Disorderly behaviour cannot be a justification for assault or torture. The very nature of the custodial situation implies that the law enforcement officers should have used restraint and professionalism, understanding the impaired ability of Edberg to defend himself or articulate his arguments. If he was unruly or abusive, it warranted de-escalation rather than violence. The thought of an injured detainee being subjected to the use of cruel and extreme force in an inclusive manner, such as hitting with an object, is a clear breach of human rights and police regulations.
If the police have to find their balance in the case, they have to release the CCTV footage and establish the facts unequivocally. Concealing or delaying the release of video evidence only fuels suspicion and erodes public confidence in policing, especially given the history of extrajudicial actions.
Lastly, the sections registered against the PSI are 115(2) and 198 of the BNS, both of which prescribe a year’s imprisonment and a small fine. We are talking about a serious offence where the victim is battling for life and death, not knowing whether he would be left partially paralysed. The apparent lack of seriousness in appropriately addressing this critical situation reflects a troubling disregard for justice and human life.
The custodial assault on Edberg is a grim reminder of the urgent need to overhaul police accountability mechanisms. The trust between police and the public has always been fragile, and such breaches threaten the very fabric of justice.
