JUDGMENT - BATTA R.K., J.:---Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court on account of death of her son Rajesh in the Central Prison, Nagpur. Initially, an affidavit of only Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur alone was filed. The affidavits of Medical Officers who attended on the deceased were not filed. Therefore, this Court had directed that affidavits of the Medical Officers be filed and in addition the Secretary, Home Department was also directed to file an affidavit. The main object behind directing the Secretary, Home Department to file the affidavit was that he should look into the matter personally and after ascertaining the correct position, file an affidavit before the Court.

2. We have heard Miss Tajwar Khan, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mrs. Jog, the learned A.P.P., for the State. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued that the deceased died on account of negligence and lack of medical treatment on the part of the jail authorities and that even an attempt was made to fabricate the record to show that the deceased had died while taking treatment in the hospital. Relying upon Article 21 of the Constitution and judgments of the Apex Court in (Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India and others)1, 1990(2) Bom.C.R. 96 , (P.M. Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal and another)2, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2426, (Muktaram Sitaram Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and others)3, 1997(4) Bom.C.R. 418, it has been urged that adequate compensation be awarded to the petitioner on account of death of son of the petitioner in the Central Prison, Nagpur for want of proper, adequate and immediate treatment which was required and which was denied to him on account of the lapses committed by the jail authorities.

3. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P., urged before us that the deceased had five criminal cases pending against him; that he was suffering from cirrhosis and that the medical record shows that proper and adequate treatment was given and all necessary and required precaution were taken by the jail authorities and that no case of negligence or want of medical treatment has been established. She also contended that, in order to establish negligence in relation to death of son of the petitioner, an enquiry will have to be ordered and without ordering any enquiry no responsibility can be fixed on the jail authorities in the matter.

4. We have gone through the records. The son of the petitioner was admitted in the Central Prison, Nagpur on 26th January, 2002. As per record, the complaint of vomiting, headache and body ache was made by the prisoner on 24-7-2002. He was examined by Dr. Mujumdar on 24-7-2002 and after first aid treatment and medicines, he was referred to the Chief Medical Officer, Central Prison. The Chief Medical Officer, Central Prison examined the deceased who noticed that the deceased had fever off and on and the deceased was kept for observation. He was admitted for observation on 25-7-2002. On examination, the Chief Medical Officer found that probably it was a case of malarial fever with severe anaemia (pallor +++ (positive) and he was advised blood transfusion and for that purpose, he was referred to Government Medical College Hospital, Nagpur. It appears that the Chief Medical Officer also examined him later on 25-7-2002 and placed on record that he be informed SOS. On 26-7-2002 the Chief Medical Officer again examined him at 8.30 a.m., and he was sent to Government Medical College Hospital, Nagpur at 10.30 a.m. The case of the respondents is that the deceased died on the way to the hospital as the record of the hospital shows that the deceased was brought dead to the hospital. The G.M.C. hospital, Nagpur certified death of the deceased at 10.55 a.m. When the learned A.P.P. was asked as to how many times the Chief Medical Officer had examined the deceased on 26th April, 2002 it was stated that the Chief Medical Officer had examined the deceased only once and in fact, the Chi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document