In this petition, the petitioner is the wife of deceased - Alla Noor Khan. She is claiming the compensation towards the liability of State on account of custodial death of her husband. According to her, the death was all outcome of brutal beating done to Alla Noor Khan by the police in public view.

2. Heard learned Adv. Mr. Vinay Dahat for the petitioner and learned APP Mrs. T.D. Khade for the respondents and perused the record.

3. Pacts, which are beyond dispute and debate, are that :

[a] On account of domestic dispute, petitioner had herself lodged a report against her husband, the deceased, in the Police Station.

[b] Without formally registering FIR. Alia Noor Khan was pulled, dragged to police station, was assaulted and beaten in public view.

[c] Alia Noor Khan collapsed on the spot, and treating him to be in a drunken state, police referred him for blood test for opinion as to alcoholism.

[d] The Medical Officer found him dead when brought and hence no test was conducted.

[e] Post-mortem examination was done.

[f] Considering the death. the matter was investigated by Asstt. Police Inspector of Slate Crime Branch who prepared the final report naming various police personnel, for trial for offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 218, 177, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

[g] The Crime Branch, however, did not indict anyone for being responsible for the death by way of murder or otherwise.

[h] In the point of view of Crime Branch as well, the death was the product of drunkenness, illness and fallout thereof and a sheer coincidence with that of manhandling by the police.

4. To substantiate his case, learned Adv. Mr. Dahat has placed reliance on following citations :

[a] D.K. Basu Vs. State of W.B. 1(1997) I SCC 4161.

AND

[b] Nilabati Behera (Smt.) alias Lalita Vs. State of Orissa & others [(1 993) 2 SCC 746].

Proposition :

[I] Fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 (1) are supreme and are not surrogated having become liable for arrest.

As to general measures pertaining to custodial torture :

Right to receive compensation and award by High Court or Supreme Court is apart from the general remedy under ordinary law.

[2]. The degree of proof to be required in such petition for compensation is not strict.

[c] Fatuji Vs. Superintendent of Police Akola & others [2002 CRI.L.J, 914] : [2002 ALL MR (Cri) 107].

Proposition :

The compensation to be awarded in public law remedy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be in addition to compensation by way of civil or criminal action, and a degree of proof to be required in such petition for compensation is not strict.

[d] Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan (Smt.) Vs. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble & another [(2003) 7 SCC 749] : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 253 (S.C.)].

Proposition :

Though evidence brought before the Court was not adequate for conviction and accused - police personnel were acquitted the award of compensation to the heirs of deceased against the State was justified.

[e] Ajab Singh & another Vs. State of U.P. & others [(2000) 3 SCC 521] [2000 ALL MR (Cri) 867 (S.C.)].

Proposition :

When the post-mortem examination indicated cause of death to be shock and haemorrhage and other evidence led by the State suggested other causes of death, prima facie it was a case of custodial torture and warranted further investigation, however, ad hoc compensation was considered just and proper in a sum of Rs. 5.00,000-00.

5. In the present Writ Petition, for claiming compensation, petitioner has averred in para 5 of the petition as regards the cause of death as follows :

"5. That during investigation, the State CID obtained the postmortem report of deceased Allanoorkhan which prima facie shows there was serious and brutal assault on the deceased Allanoorkhan and the opinion as to the cause of death opined by the medical officers is :

“Asphyxia resulting into cardio respiratory arrest as a result of massive pulmonary oedema.” Therefore it is crystal clear that deceased Allanoorkhan is a victim of