THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: More than a decade after the alleged custodial torture of a man arrested in connection with an elephant ivory poaching case, a court in Kerala has ordered prosecution of three Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers and five other forest officials, including an IFS couple.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, has taken cognisance of multiple offences against the eight officials in connection with the alleged torture of Aji Brait, who was arrested in 2015 in the Malayattoor elephant poaching case.
Chief Judicial Magistrate N.N. Arun Bechu, in an order pronounced on August 19, 2026, rejected a Crime Branch report that had sought to drop further proceedings after the Kerala government refused sanction to prosecute the accused public servants.
The court held that prior prosecution sanction was not required, as the alleged acts of custodial torture had no reasonable or intrinsic connection with the performance of the officials’ duties.
IFS Couple Among Eight Accused
The eight officials against whom the court has ordered proceedings are:
- T. Uma, IFS
- R. Kamalahar, IFS
- K. Vijayanandan, IFS
- T.S. Mathew Jyothish
- T. Sreejith
- R.B. Arunkumar
- K.S. Anu Krishnan
The case concerns allegations that Aji was illegally detained and brutally assaulted by forest officials after being taken into their custody in July 2015.
The court has directed that summons be issued to the accused after finding sufficient prima facie material in the investigation records, the complainant’s statements and witness evidence.
Read also: Who Was P H Kurian? Former Patent Controller and Kerala Bureaucrat Dies at 67
What Happened to Aji in 2015?
According to the court order, Aji surrendered before Sreekaryam police station on July 11, 2015, in connection with the Edamalayar forest poaching case.
Forest officials subsequently took custody of him from the police station after executing a receipt and brought him to the Forest Headquarters at Vazhuthakkadu at around 10.30 pm.
The court noted that his arrest was allegedly not recorded and that he was illegally detained.
According to the allegations recorded during the investigation, Aji was assaulted soon after getting out of the vehicle. He was then allegedly taken inside the Forest Information Bureau, where several officials allegedly assaulted him.
The allegations include beating with bamboo sticks and an iron rod wrapped in cloth, assaults with fists and shoes, and hitting with an iron block wrapped in cloth.
The court order records allegations that the assault caused multiple rib fractures and a fracture of the scapula.
Aji also alleged that he was forced to sign blank sheets of paper.
Allegations of 18-Hour Torture
Aji had earlier spoken to The News Minute in 2021 about the alleged torture.
He claimed that he was subjected to prolonged physical assault after being taken to the Forest Headquarters and alleged that senior officials were aware of the proceedings.
According to his account, he was physically assaulted for several hours and repeatedly beaten with a steel rod.
These allegations are part of the material considered by the court in deciding whether there was sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed against the accused.
Medical Evidence Supports Assault Allegations
The allegations of custodial assault were also supported by medical evidence cited in the court order.
A Casualty Medical Officer at Muvattupuzha General Hospital examined Aji on August 1, 2015.
The medical certificate recorded a CT scan showing a fracture of the left scapula and fractures of the right 10th, 11th and 12th ribs.
The court noted that Aji had told the doctor that he had been assaulted and manhandled by forest officials on July 11.
The doctor reportedly opined that the injuries could have been caused by an assault as described by Aji. The medical evidence also indicated that if the injuries had resulted from an accident or fall, injuries would ordinarily have been expected on other parts of the body as well.
Witness Statement Provides Prima Facie Corroboration
The Crime Branch investigation also recorded the statement of Sureshkumar, who allegedly witnessed some of the officials torturing Aji and heard him crying.
According to the witness statement, the officials were questioning Aji about idols and other articles allegedly made using ivory tusks.
The magistrate observed that Aji’s allegations received prima facie corroboration from the witness statement.
The court found that the material indicated that Aji was assaulted while in the custody of forest officials with the alleged intention of compelling him to provide statements or confessions concerning the ivory-related allegations.
The court concluded that the allegations prima facie attracted Sections 330 and 331 of the IPC, relating to voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort confession or information.
Crime Branch Investigation Found Multiple Offences
The case initially originated from the complaint made after Aji was medically examined at Muvattupuzha General Hospital following the alleged assault.
A case was initially registered at Muvattupuzha police station and subsequently re-registered at Museum police station, Thiruvananthapuram, after it was determined that the alleged offences fell within its jurisdiction.
The investigation was later handed over to the Crime Branch.
The Crime Branch investigation concluded that offences under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code had been committed.
These included Sections 342, 348, 326, 330, 331, 167, 201, 403 and 34 of the IPC.
However, because the accused were public servants, the investigating officer sought government sanction for prosecution.
Kerala Government Refused Prosecution Sanction
The General Administration Department and the Forest and Wildlife Department subsequently refused sanction to prosecute the officials through separate orders dated October 6 and November 10, 2025, respectively.
Following the refusal, the investigating officer submitted a report seeking to drop further proceedings.
Aji objected to the closure report.
He argued that allegations involving custodial assault, wrongful confinement, destruction of evidence and fabrication or suppression of records could not be protected by the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution of public servants.
The magistrate accepted this argument and rejected the move to close the case.
Court: Custodial Torture Cannot Be Protected as Official Duty
A major aspect of the order is the court’s interpretation of the protection available to public servants under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The court referred to the settled legal principle that such protection applies only where the alleged act has a reasonable and intrinsic connection with the discharge of official duty.
Acts that are manifestly beyond official duty or wholly unconnected with it cannot claim such protection.
The magistrate specifically held that alleged custodial torture could not be treated as an act performed in the discharge of official responsibilities.
The order relied on the Supreme Court’s legal position that custodial torture inflicted on an arrestee without justification cannot be shielded by Section 197 CrPC merely because the accused is a public servant.
Court Rejects ‘Excess During Official Duty’ Argument
The court also rejected the argument that the alleged assault could be treated as an excess committed during the course of official duty.
The magistrate distinguished the case from allegations of excessive force used during an arrest or other legitimate official action.
According to the court, the material in this case pointed to allegations of custodial torture, illegal detention, multiple rib fractures, destruction of evidence and falsification of official records.
The court therefore found no reasonable nexus between the alleged acts and the lawful performance of the accused officials’ duties.
It observed that custodial torture cannot attract official protection and found the government’s refusal of sanction to suffer from a lack of proper application of mind.
The court also noted that the sanction decision appeared to have relied on the complainant’s alleged criminal antecedents rather than independently examining the nature of the allegations against the officials.
Aji Alleged Continued Harassment After Complaint
The case also had a long aftermath for Aji.
In his 2021 interaction with The News Minute, he alleged that he continued to face legal difficulties after pursuing his allegations against the forest officials.
He claimed that when he secured bail in one case, another case would be registered against him.
He also alleged that he struggled to travel between Thiruvananthapuram and Muvattupuzha, a distance of more than 200 km, to attend court proceedings while dealing with injuries and financial difficulties.
Aji further claimed that he had been summoned by the Enforcement Directorate’s Kochi office on two occasions.
According to his account, he was unable to work and faced difficulties meeting treatment, travel and legal expenses.
These allegations form part of the broader background of the prolonged legal battle but have not themselves been adjudicated in the present order.
Court Takes Cognisance of Eight Offences
After examining the final report, Aji’s additional statement and witness statements, the magistrate found sufficient prima facie material to proceed.
The court took cognisance of offences under Sections 167, 201, 326, 330, 331, 342, 348 and 403 of the IPC.
The court then took the case on file and ordered that summons be issued to the accused officials.
The order means that the decade-old case will now proceed despite the government’s earlier refusal to grant prosecution sanction.
Case Stems From Malayattoor Elephant Ivory Poaching Investigation
The custodial torture allegations originated from the forest department’s investigation into an alleged elephant ivory poaching case at the Edamalayar Forest Station in 2015.
Aji was among those accused in that case and was taken into the custody of forest officials after surrendering at a police station.
The subsequent allegations of illegal detention and torture eventually led to a separate criminal investigation.
The latest court order does not determine the guilt of the accused officials. It establishes that, at the present stage, there is sufficient prima facie material for the criminal case to proceed.
Decade-Old Case Now Moves Towards Trial
The Thiruvananthapuram court’s order marks a significant development in a case that has remained pending for more than a decade.
The refusal of prosecution sanction had threatened to bring the proceedings to an end, but the court has now ruled that the alleged conduct falls outside the protection available for acts performed in the discharge of official duties.
With summons ordered against the eight officials, including the three IFS officers, the case will now move forward in accordance with law.
The proceedings could also have wider implications for the legal protection available to public servants in cases alleging custodial torture, particularly where the alleged conduct has no reasonable connection with legitimate official functions.
Read also: Why The Supreme Court Wants Kerala To Change Its Death Row Prison Transfer Rule
