SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. Chandrachud, CJI., O.Chinnappa Reddy, J.
Anil Yadav
Versus
State Of Bihar
Case No., 5352 of 1980
Date of Decision, 12/1/80
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 19 and 21 - Lost Eyesight - Physical Damage - Trial Prisoners - Report of doctor which we had called for by our order shows that eight out of ten petitioners before us lost their eyesight totally or partially - Report submitted in each individual case shows that most of petitioners are suffering from collapse of one are both of eyeballs sight of one or both of their eyes is lost - There is perforation of their eyeballs by burn with a corrosive substance and that their eyes have been punctured by some sharp and pointed weapon - Remaining two petitioners have been released and therefore no report could be sent regarding them - Report of doctor will shock conscience of mankind - There has been most flagrant violation of safeguards provided - There is nothing that court can do to restore physical damage which seems irreparable - Held, Names of convicts and under trial prisoners in jail whose eyes have been damaged or impaired before or after their lodgment in jail - Names of policemen police officers and members of jail staff who were in charge of those prisoners at relevant time - Names of doctors who were in charge of jail dispensary or hospital at relevant time and names of doctors who have examined from time to time petitioners and other prisoners whose eyes have been damaged or impaired after their lodgment in jail - We direct that registrar of supreme court and one other officer to visit central jail during this week and obtain first- hand version of petitioners and other prisoners similarly situated as regards impairment or blinding of their eyes - Two officers of court shall be granted every facility to meet prisoners to talk to them beyond hearing of any jail officer or police officer and to record statements of prisoners - Order Accordingly.
(1) THE report of the doctor which we had called for by our Order dated 10/10/1980 shows that eight out of the ten petitioners before us lost their eyesight totally or partially. The report submitted by Dr. K.S. Roy in each individual case shows that-
(I) most of the petitioners are suffering from collapse of one ar both of the eyeballs ;
(II) the sight of one or both of their eyes is lost ;
(III) there is perforation of their eyeballs by burn with a corrosive substance; and that
(IV) their eyes have been punctured by some sharp and pointed weapon.
The remaining two petitioners have been released and therefore no report could be sent regarding them.
(2) THE report of the doctor will shock the conscience of mankind. There has been the most flagrant violation of the safeguards provided by Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. There is nothing that the court can do to restore the physical damage, which seems irreparable. But the offenders must at all events be brought to book at least in the hope that such brutal atrocities will not happen again.
(3) WITH that end in view, we direct that the Superintendent of the Bhagalpur central Jail will file an affidavit in this Court within two weeks from today staling :-
(A) the names of convicts and under trial prisoners in the jail whose eyes have been damaged or impaired before or after their lodge- ment in jail;
(B) the names of policemen, police officers and the members of the jail staff who were in charge of those prisoners at the relevant time;
(C) the names of doctors who were in charge of the jail dispensary or hospital at the relevant time ; and
(D) the names of doctors who have examined, from time to time, the petitioners and other prisoners whose eyes have been damaged or impaired after their lodgement in jail.
(4) WE direct that the Registrar of the Supreme Court and one other officer to visit the Bhagalpur central Jail during this week and obtain first- hand the version of the petitioners and other prisoners similarly situated as regards the impairment or blinding of their eyes. The two officers of the court shall be granted every facility to meet the prisoners, to talk to them beyond the hearing of any jail officer or police officer and to record the statements of the prisoners. We direct the Jail Superintendent to ensure due and full compliance with these directions.
(5) ISSUE notice to the State of Bihar asking it to show cause on the petition as also as to why the petitioners should not be released on their personal recognizance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.