SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 529

2000(2) Supreme 313
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.P. Bharucha & S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Ajab Singh & Anr. -Petitioners
versus
State of U.P. & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 291-292 of 1997
Decided on 9-3-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners : Manoj Swarup, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Pramod Swarup, Ms. Pareena Swarup and A.S. Pundir, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
In a case of death in judicial custody State Govt. is responsible in public law for such death and must pay compensation where death appears to be homicide.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 32-Judicial custody death-Post mortem report opined cause of death to be shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries-Petition for direction for investigation by C.B.I. and for compensation-Report of inquiry conducted by DIG (Prisons) not produced-Report of Medical Board to which medical report and post-mortem report were referred also not produced-Respondent s affidavit saying that deceased died of "jaundice and live failure" appeared to be as concocted-Fit case where cause of death of deceased be investigated by CBI-CBI to register a case and conduct investigation-State Govt to pay compensation of Rs. 55 lacs to petitioners, parents of deceased which held without prejudice to rights of legal representatives of deceased to claim compensation in private law.

       

JUDGMENT

Bharucha, J.-These writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India are filed by the parents of one Rishipal who died while in judicial custody on 1st June, 1996. They pray that an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation be ordered into the circumstances of Rishipal s death and that the respondents, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the police and jail authorities of Meerut, be directed to pay to them compensation for his death.

2. Rishipal was married to Munish and had three children, aged 7, 4 and 2½ years in 1997. Munish died on 16th May, 1996. In a complaint lodged in the Police Station, Jani, District Meerut, by the brother of Munish, Rishipal, his brother, father, mother and sister were alleged to have been involved in the death of Munish. On 27th May, 1996, Rishipal, his brother and father were arrested. On 28th May, 1996, they were remanded to judicial custody and lodged in the District Jail, Meerut. Rishipal was seen to be in good health on 31st May, 1996. On the next day, the petitioners received a message that Rishipal had been taken ill and hospitalised in the Medical College, Meerut. On that day, Rishipal was visited by his uncle in the Medical College, Meerut and was found to be in the Emergency Ward. At 9.00 p.m. on 1st June, 1996 he was declared dead.

3. The report on the post-mortem examination of the body of Rishipal on 2nd June, 1996 by Dr. M.K. Arya and Dr. B.K. Bajpai is on record. It shows that Rishipal was about 32 years of age and had expired in the Medical College, Meerut at about 9.05 p.m. on 1st June, 1996. External examination of his body showed "bleeding present from nose and mouth". The right side of the thorax contained blood. The organs in the abdomen were found to be contused, to contain 700 ml of blood, and to be congested and contain 100 ml of blood respectively. Ante mortem injuries were found on the body thus :

"1. Multiple contusion in an area of 15 cm x 6 cm on back of Rt. wrist and hand.

2. Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on medical aspect of Rt. ankle joint.

3. Contusion 5 cm x 3 cm on medical aspect left ankle joint.

4. Multiple contusions in an area of 18 cm x 7 cm on back of left forearm extending upto left hand.

5. Tranmatic swelling 25 cm x 20 cm on front of abdomen.

The cause of the death was reported to be "shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries".

4. The case of the petitioners, principally based upon the post-mortem report, is that Rishipal s death had occurred in judicial custody by reason of injuries then sustained. The petitioners state that Rishipal was working as a Supervisor with a contractor of Maruti Udyog Limited, Gurgaon and received emoluments in the sum of Rupees five thousand per month.

5. The affidavits filed in reply to the writ petitions make very interesting reading. The Senior Superintendent of the District Jail, Meerut, the third respondent, states that Rishipal did not have any injury at the time of admission to the jail. Rishipal had gone to the jail hospital on 31st May, 1996 and complained of "jaundice" and weakness, yellow urine and lack of appetite. He was admitted to the jail hospital and treated for jaundice. On the evening of 31st May, 1996, Rishipal started vomiting and was given treatment. The jail doctor referred him to the Medical College, Meerut where he was admitted at about 8.40 p.m. on 1st June, 1996. His condition did not improve "and he died as result of the jaundice and liver failure". The post-mortem examination of the dead body of Rishipal "was conducted by Dr. Mahesh Kumar Arya and Dr. B.K. Bajpai, Medical Officers of P.L. Sharma Hospital (District Hospital), Meerut. However, the post mortem proceedings were reportedly interrupted and influenced by the unruly crowd of hooligans claiming to be Kisan Union workers. The post mortem report is rather misleading which narrated the cause of death as shock and haemorrhage










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top