1. Writ petitions — Criminal investigation — Ex-gratia payment to victims — Medical treatment and protection of injured persons in custody. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 1524
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I. and S.C. Sen, J.
Jagir Singh/Sukhvir Singh & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. Etc. - Respondents
W.P. (Crl.) No. 346 of 1994, 364-376 of 1994
Decided On : 30-1-1995
Important Points
The court emphasized the state's duty to ensure a fair trial by preventing the suppression of evidence and the obligation to provide necessary medical treatment and protection to injured persons in custody.
Subject
Criminal Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Headnote
(A) Writ Petition (Criminal) - Investigation and Trial - Fair trial - Charge-sheet filed against multiple accused - Trial court must ensure that any effort to keep back material from the Court to interfere with evidence is thwarted (Para 1).
(B) Compensation and Prisoner Rights - Ex-gratia payments to legal representatives of deceased and injured persons - State Government's obligation to ensure necessary medical treatment and proper protection for injured persons in jail (Paras 2, 4).
Facts of the case:
Petitions were filed regarding an investigation resulting in a charge-sheet against 41 persons. Ex-gratia payments were made to the legal representatives of the deceased and to the injured. The injured persons were in custody and receiving medical treatment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the investigation was carried out in a proper manner and that ex-gratia payments had been sanctioned. It noted that medical reports indicated improvement in the health of the injured persons.
Issues: Whether the investigation was conducted properly, whether compensation was disbursed to the victims, and whether adequate medical care and protection were being provided to the injured persons in custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the presiding judge of the trial must ensure the integrity of evidence by preventing the withholding of material and that the state must guarantee necessary medical treatment and protection for injured persons in jail.
Result: The writ petitions stand disposed of.
(B) Compensation and Prisoner Rights - Ex-gratia payments to legal representatives of deceased and injured persons - State Government's obligation to ensure necessary medical treatment and proper protection for injured persons in jail (Paras 2, 4).
Facts of the case:
Petitions were filed regarding an investigation resulting in a charge-sheet against 41 persons. Ex-gratia payments were made to the legal representatives of the deceased and to the injured. The injured persons were in custody and receiving medical treatment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the investigation was carried out in a proper manner and that ex-gratia payments had been sanctioned. It noted that medical reports indicated improvement in the health of the injured persons.
Issues: Whether the investigation was conducted properly, whether compensation was disbursed to the victims, and whether adequate medical care and protection were being provided to the injured persons in custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the presiding judge of the trial must ensure the integrity of evidence by preventing the withholding of material and that the state must guarantee necessary medical treatment and protection for injured persons in jail.
Result: The writ petitions stand disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
-
writ jurisdiction
- disposal of petitions (Para 5)
-
writ jurisdiction
- crime and sentencing
- administrative law
- human rights
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over actual disbursement of sanctioned ex-gratia payments — Apprehension regarding adequacy of medical treatment and protection of injured persons in custody. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Investigation found proper — Trial court's duty to prevent suppression of material — State's obligation to ensure necessary medical treatment and protection for injured persons in custody. (Para 1 , 4 )
4. Trial courts must ensure evidence is not suppressed — State is responsible for providing necessary medical treatment and protection to injured persons in custody. (Para 1 , 4 )
5. Writ petitions disposed of — Directions issued for fair trial conduct and provision of medical treatment and protection to injured persons in custody. (Para 5 )
6. What is the responsibility of the trial judge regarding the presentation of evidence?
The trial judge must ensure that any effort to keep back material from the court or to interfere with evidence is thwarted. (Para 1 )
7. What is the State Government's obligation toward injured persons held in jail?
The State Government must ensure that all necessary medical treatment is accorded to injured persons and that they are provided with proper protection while in jail. (Para 4 )
8. How can counsel verify the actual disbursement of sanctioned payments to persons in custody?
Counsel may visit the jail to meet the injured persons and ascertain whether the sanctioned amounts were actually paid. (Para 3 )
JUDGMENT :
1. Pursuant to our order dated 23rd January, 1995 the relevant inquiry papers have been placed for perusal and the charge- sheet filed by the State against 41 persons is also appended to the affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Shrivastava, the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID UP Headquarters, Lucknow. Mr. Sodhi, learned counsel for the petitioners has satisfied himself that the investigation was carried out in a proper manner and he only hopes that the matter will be persuade with the same zeal at the trial. We are sure that the Presiding Judge before whom the trial will be conducted will ensure that any effort to keep back the material from the Court to interfere with evidence would be thwarted.
2. Since the legal representatives of the deceased have already been paid ex-gratia payment of Rs. one lac per person, and the injured have been sanctioned Rs. 20,000/- each nothing further remains to be done so far as that aspect of the matter is concerned.
3. Mr. Parekh learned Advocate had some doubts as to whether the injured persons were merely sanctioned the amount or were actually paid. That could be ascertained, if Mr. Parekh, so desires, by visiting the jail and meeting the injured. persons. No restraint seems to have been placed on counsel visiting and ascertaining this fact. We see no reason to doubt the statement on behalf of the Government in this behalf but should there be any difficult in that behalf counsel will have liberty to approach this Court.
4. As regards the medical treatment, to be provided to the injured persons, counsel for the State Government states that proper, arrangements for medical treatment have been made and the latest medical report shows that they have considerably improved. We do hope that the State Government will ensure that Whatever medical treatment is, necessary so far as the injured are concerned will be accorded to them and proper protection will also be given to them in jail. This should take care of the apprehension expressed by Mr. Parekh.
5. Nothing further remains to be done. The writ petitions will stand disposed of accordingly.
