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

2011 Supreme(SC) 120

Supreme Court of India
G.S. SINGHVI & ASOK KUMAR GANGULY
Dy. Commr. Dharwad Dist. Dharwad & Others
Versus
Shivakka & Others
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)..... of 2010 CC 18691 of 2010
Decided on: 31-01-2011

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioners:Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Advocate.
For Respondent:-----

Headnote:

Constitution Of India,1950 - Article 226 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 342 - pay compensation – Punishable - Court to interfere with order passed by Single Judge for payment of to respondent as compensation in lieu of death of their bread winner in police custody - Deputy Commissioner and two others have filed this petition husband of respondent and father of respondent is alleged to have mercilessly beaten by Subhash Desai President of Amminabhavi Panchayat District Hardwar after tying him to telephone pole in front of his house in village - Receipt of information about incident police reached spot and took to Police Station - However instead of taking action against wrong doer police arrested victim and kept him in custody for more than hours - During that period he is said to have been severely thrashed by respondent Police Sub Inspector Dharwad Rural Police Station Dharma –Held, Country but came here as citizen of Bangladesh was nevertheless entitled to all constitutional rights available to citizen so far as right to life was concerned - She was entitled to be treated with dignity and was also entitled to protection of her person as guaranteed Article Constitution - National of another country she could not be subjected to treatment which was below dignity nor could she be subjected to physical violence at hands of government employees who outraged her modesty - Right available to her Article was thus violated – Consequently State was under a constitutional liability to pay compensation to her - Judgment passed by Calcutta High Court therefore allowing compensation to her for having been gang raped cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity - Single Judge did not commit any error by entertaining writ petition filed by respondent direction given by him for payment of compensation respondent was rightly affirmed by Division Bench High Court - Same time court are of view that compensation awarded by High Court is less than just - High Court should have taken note fact that only bread winner family was killed in barbaric manner and awarded adequate compensation keeping in view ratio of judgments this Court including - Petition dismissed

Judgment

1. Delay condoned.

2. Feeling aggrieved by refusal of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge for payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 as compensation in lieu of the death of their bread winner Basappa Kuri in police custody. Deputy Commissioner, Dhardwad and two others have filed this petition.

3. Basappa Kuri (husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 5) is alleged to have mercilessly beaten by Subhash Desai, President of Amminabhavi Panchayat, District-Dhardwad, after tying him to telephone pole in front of his house in the village. On receipt of information about the incident, the police reached the spot and took Basappa Kuri to Police Station. However, instead of taking action against the wrong doer, the police arrested the victim and kept him in custody for more than 24 hours. During that period, he is said to have been severely thrashed by respondent No.6 K.S. Tanveer, Police Sub Inspector, Dharwad Rural Police Station, Dharwad. After torturing him for two days, the police took Basappa Kuri to City Civil Hospital, Dharwad at 2:30 AM on 29.11.2002, where he breathed his last at 3:00 AM.

4. A complaint was registered against respondent No.6 for an offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. After few days, Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad announced compensation of Rs.1 lac to the family of the deceased. This appears to have been done after the District Administration realised that it was a case of custodial death.

5. Feeling dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the District Administration, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of mandamus to the petitioner herein to pay higher compensation. The learned Single Judge referred to Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, the judgements of this Court in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa AIR 1993 SC 1960 = (1993) 2 SCC 746, D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610 = (1997) 1 SCC 416 and Ajab Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 2000 SC 3421 = (2000) 3 SCC 521 and directed the petitioners to pay Rs.3 lacs to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in addition to Rs.1 lac already announced by Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad.

6. The petitioners challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Appeal No. 366/2007. The Division Bench of the High Court approved the view taken by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ appeal by making the following observations:

"The fact that the deceased Basappa Kuri was within the power and control of the Police and the Police station for two continuous days and nights, is borne out by record and it is also borne out by record that when the deceased person had been taken for medical examination on 27.11.2002, the Doctor had certified that he had sustained three injuries, whereas on 29.11.2002 the Medical Officer had certified that Basappa Kuri was brought dead to hospital. The Postmortem examination Report reveals that deceased Basappa Kuri had suffered multiple fractures and injuries and his death was due to shock and hemorrhage.

The injuries which the deceased had suffered on 27.11.2002 may be due to assault by the said Subhash Desai. But the subsequent facts reveal that something very damaging, disastrous had happened to deceased Basappa Kuri while he was within the power and control of the Police. That is good enough for a writ court to exercise jurisdiction to compensate the kith and kin as in a situation where duty of the State Government is to protect and promote the interest of its citizens, if the protector themselves should turn predators, start beating people black and blue to the extent of causing multiple fractures resulting in a homicidal death, and in a situation of this nature quantification in terms of money definitely fails in any way to repair the damage caus




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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