Back
1995 Supreme(AP) 273
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : MOTILAL B.NAIK
Suramalla Ramulu - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 06-16-95
The State is responsible for the death of a prisoner who died while he was undergoing imprisonment and the State is liable to pay compensation to the eligible petitioners.
Headnote:
CUSTODIAL DEATH - STATE LIABILITY - COMPENSATION - QUANTUM - FACTORS CONSIDERED - AGE, INCOME, DEPENDENCY, CRIMINAL RECORD, RELATIONSHIP WITH DEPENDENTS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought a mandamus to declare the respondents wholly responsible for the death of S. Shankar, a convict undergoing life term in Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad and consequently direct the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the State is responsible for the death of Shankar who died while he was undergoing imprisonment for life term and the State is liable to pay compensation. The court also held that the jail authorities are responsible for the death of Shankar and they cannot absolve their responsibility from paying compensation to the eligible petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the State is responsible for the death of said Shankar who died while he was undergoing imprisonment for life term and whether the State is liable to pay compensation? 2. What is the quantum of compensation that could be awarded to the petitioners?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Smt. Kewal Pati v. State of U. P., Francies Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, Saheli, A Women's Resource Centre v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa to hold that the State is responsible for the acts committed by its servants and the jail authorities are responsible for the death of Shankar. 2. In determining the quantum of compensation, the court considered factors such as the dependency, age, earning, and other factors of the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court directed the first respondent to pay a monthly compensation of Rs. 500.00 to the second petitioner being the mother of the deceased Shankar for the rest of her life. The first respondent shall also pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 25,000.00 to the third petitioner being the wife of deceased Shankar. The first respondent shall also pay Rs. 5,000.00 each to the second and third petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
( 1 ) PETITIONERS seek a mandamus to declare that the respondents are wholly responsible for the death of one S. Shankar, a convict undergoing life term in Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad and consequently direct the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to the petitioners.
( 2 ) FEW acts are narrated hereunder for the purpose of appreciating the issues raised in this writ petition.
( 3 ) THE Writ Petition is filed by three persons. Petitioner No. 1 claims to be the father of the deceased S. Shankar, petitioner No. 2 claims to be the mother and petitioner No. 3 claims to be the wife of the deceased S. Shankar, who are aged 60, 55 and 30 years respectively.
( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that said Shankar was undergoing imprisonment for life in the Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad. On 11-8-1992, they received a telegraphic communication from the third respondent who is the Superintendent of Central Prison, Chanchalguda Jail, Hyderabad intimating the expiry of said Shankar on 10-8-1992 in the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. The petitioners apprehend that the death of Shankar is due to the tortuous acts and cruel treatment meted out to him by the staff of the third respondent, while he was undergoing imprisonment in the Central Prison. These petitioners claim that while Shankar was alive and before he was imprisoned to undergo life sentence, he was working as a coal filler in Singareni Collieries, earning about Rs. 1500. 00 per month. Petitioners further claim that they were solely dependent on the earnings of said Shankar. Their livelihood is now being deprived on account of untimely death of said Shankar. Therefore, the petitioners are claiming a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs from the respondents.
( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter has been filed, inter-alia, contending that they are not responsible for the death of Shankar. On the contrary, the respondents have taken a specific stand that said Shankar was beaten to death by a co-convict one Chakali Nagendrudu. It is the case of the respondents that on the intervening night of 9/10-8-1992, one of the co-convict by name Chakali Nagendrudu inflicted injuries to said Shankar in barrack No. 4 in which said Nagendrudu, deceased Shankar and few other were lodged. It is stated that said Shankar, Negendrudu and two others were unwell and on the basis of the advise of the doctors, all these persons were lodged in barrack No. 4 which is a rest room. It is further stated that on the intervening night of 9/10-8-1992, said Chakali Nagendrudu inflicted injuries on the body of Shankar with the help of a broken wodden piece which was kept in the latrine for cleaning purposes. When the scuffle was going on between Chakali Nagedrudu and Shanker, the other convicts who were also in the said barrack made hue and cry and tried to protect Shankar from Chakali Nagendrudu. On hearing the hue and cry, the staff of the Central Prison also came running, opened the barrack and separated Shankar from Chakali Nagendrudu and rushed Shankar to Osmania General Hospital and was given some treatment, where he was declared dead by the doctors. In this background, the respondents state that they are not responsible for the death of said Shankar. They also deny the allegation that Shankar was done to death on account of the tortuous acts of the staff of the Central Prison. The respondents also disown any responsibility to pay compensation and seek dismissal of the writ petition.
( 6 ) IN this background, two important questions arise before this Court for consideration, viz. , 1) Whether the State is responsible for the death of said Shankar who died while he was undergoing imprisonment for life term and whether the State is liable to pay compensation ? 2) What is the quantum of compensation that could be awarded to the petitioners ?
( 7 ) THERE are different versions as regards to the cause of death of said Shankar. Petitioners claim that t
