( 1 ) THE short question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the State is liable for damages for the voluntary act of a prisoner who committed suicide while he was in judicial custody.

( 2 ) THE undisputed facts, in nutshell are as under : The petitioner s on by name Puppala Anji Babu who was an accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-B, IPC in Cr. No. 149/96 of Bapatla Town Police Station was remanded to judicial custody on 25-11-1996 and was admitted in Sub-Jail, Bapatla on the same day. The deceased prisoner s uncle Puppala Prasad Rao and his wife Subbayamma and his cousin brother Puppala Srinivasa Rao, who were co-accused were also lodged in the said jail in connecton with the same crime. The deceased prisoner committed suicide by hanging himself in one of the bathrooms of Sub-Jail on 4-1-1997 when the prisoners were taken out of the cells for evening meal. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur who conducted judicial enquiry recorded the statements of fellow prisoners who were confined along with the deceased prisoner. Basing on the said enquiry report, a case has been registered against the co-accused of the deceased prisoner, namely, his uncle Puppala Prasada Rao, his cousin brother, Srinivasa Rao, and his uncle Ramahandra Rao, in Cr. No. 2/97 under Section 306, IPC of Bapatla Town Police Station. On committing the case to the Sessions Court, the case was tried by Assistant Sessions Judge, Bapatla and were acquitted by the Assistant Sessions Judge holding that there was no material before the court with regard to the conduct of the accused at the time of commission of suicide by the deceased or even subsequent thereto. The accused are related to the deceased and have been facing the same charge while they were in Sub-Jail, Bapatla and there is no material placed by the prosecution, which constitutes an act of abatement intended to operate on the mind of the deceeaed to commit suicide. Accordingly, they were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

( 3 ) ON such acquittal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking compensation to the estate of the deceased-prisoner contending that the Jail authorities were negligent in preventing the prisoner from committing suicide and for the omission committed by jail authorities in preventing the harassment by the co-prisoners.

( 4 ) OPPOSING the writ petition, the first and second respondent filed separate counters. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that prisoner did not complain to the Sub-Jail Superintendent at any time from the date of admission till the date of committing suicide that he was subjected to harassment by the co-accused nor complained to the Jail staff in that regard. The fellow prisoners who were also confined in the same cell No. 3 have not brought such news to the notice of either to the Sub-Jail Superintendent or Jail staff at any point of time. The petitioner never visited his son during his confinement in jail i. e. , 21-11-1996 to 4-1-1997. One P. Venkateswaralu said to be the petitioner s brother availed interview with the deceased prisoner on 24-12-1996. The sub-jail authorities were not at all informed of any such harassment either by the deceased prisoner or co-accused or by the fellow prisoner. Even when the prisoner was produced before the Magistrate on the dates of hearing, he never complained about the harassment meted out to him in the cell by the co-accused. Acquittal of the co-accused also strengthens the fact that there was no harassment of the deceased prisoner by the co-accused, which lead to his committing suicide.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Sri K. Balagopal contends that prisoner can make only oral complaint but not written complaint as he was not supplied with any paper and pen. Jail authorities have constructive knowledge of harassment in view of the statement made by the co-prisoners during the cou