Back
ANDHRAPRADESH HIGH COURT
Motilal B. Naik, J.
Suramalla Ramulu & Ors. -Petitioners
versus
State of A.P. through Secretary, Dept. of Home & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 19473 of 1993
Decided on 16.6.1995
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioners: M/s. S.A. Chari. G. Radha Krishna.
For the Respondents: Govt. Pleader.
IMPORTANT POINT
In a case of custodial death even though death of a prisoner is on account of acts of a co-convict, yet the prison authority is not absolve of its liability to ensure his life and safety in Jail.
Headnote:(i) Custody death - Deceased undergoing life imprisonment died - State's plea that he was beaten to death by co-convict ---For determining liability of State for compensation, cause of death need not be gone into. Even though death of prisoner was on account of acts of a co-convict, prison authorities are not absolved of their responsibility to ensure his life and safety - Killing of deceased has resulted in deprivation of life, contrary to law - State is responsible for this death and liable to pay compensation. (Paras 6 to 8)
(ii) Custodial death. - Claim for compensation - Deceased undergoing life imprisonment, had killed his son suspecting fidelity of his wife taking son born from his father - Claimant father can not be considered entitled to compensation as deceased would not have supported him. (Para 15)
(iii) Custodial death - Claim for compensation by mother .of deceased - Deceased was 39, undergoing life imprisonment, has passed 4 years imprisonment - He would have been out of Jail at the age of 50 - claimant is 55 years Claimant at this age needs maintenance for rest of her life - Amount of Rs. 500/- per month directed to be paid by State to her for rest of her life. (Paras 16 & 17)
(iv) custodial death - Claim for compensation by wife - Deceased was undergoing life imprisonment, having killed his own son suspecting fidelity of his wife - Since even a divorced wife is entitled for maintenance, claimant is entitled to some compensation - Compensation of Rs. 25000/- awarded. (Para 18)
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER
Motilal B. Naik, J. - Petitioners seek a mandumus 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 facts 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/- 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 the 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 h1tervening night of 9/10-8-1992, one of the co-convicts by name Chakali Nagendrudu inflicted injuries to said Shankar in barrack No.4 in which said Nagendiudu, deceased Shankar and few others were lodged. It is stated that said Shankar Nagendrudu and two others were unwell and on the basis of the advice 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 91 10-8-1992, said Chakali Nagendrudu inflicted injuries on the body of Shankar with the help of a broken wooden piece which was kept in the latrine for cleaning purposes. When the scuffle was going on between Chakali Nagendrudu and Shankar, 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.
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?
6. There are different versions as regards to the cause of death of said Shankar. Petitioners claim that the death of S
