IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.
CWJC No. 5845 of 2020
(11.12.2024)
Santosh Kumar Choudhary ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Custodial death – Claim of compensation – Petition filed for directing the respondents to pay suitable compensation for the loss and damages caused to the petitioner and his family members on account of unnatural death of the father of the petitioner while he was in custody – Judicial Magistrate who had conducted a judicial inquiry pertaining to the death of deceased father of the petitioner come to a finding that there has been no foul play inside the jail and the death of the deceased father of the petitioner appears to be accidental in nature – There are ample materials on record to show that the deceased father of the petitioner was not killed by the jail authorities or the other jail inmates as also there has been no foul play inside the jail and the death of the deceased father of the petitioner is accidental which has taken place due to falling from the bed, on account of him being frail and ill, leading to him sustaining serious injuries, which ultimately led to his death – Claim of compensation involving disputed question of facts cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 7 to 9)
Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to pay suitable compensation for the loss and damages caused to the petitioner and his family members on account of unnatural death of the father of the petitioner on 04.03.2014, while he was in custody in connection with Udwant Nagar P.S. Case No.352 of 2013.
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner are that the deceased father of the petitioner, who was a retired constable was taken into custody in connection with Udwant Nagar P.S. Case No.352 of 2013 and was remanded to Ara Mandal Kara on 17.12.2013. The deceased father of the petitioner was an old man and was hail and hearty, nonetheless, he died on 04.03.2014, after he was referred to the Sadar Hospital, Ara, where he was declared as brought dead, by the hospital authorities. The Inquest Report shows signs of blood stains on the elbow, left ear and left cheek as also blood stains were found on the bed of the deceased father of the petitioner. The cause of death of the deceased father of the petitioner has been stated in the post mortem report as due to some blunt trauma on head caused by some heavy weapon leading to cerebral hemorrhage and fracture of cheek bone leading to cardiorespiratory arrest and death. It is stated that the entire jail authorities, in order to cover up their mistake, had tried to show that the death of the deceased father of the petitioner is a natural death but the fact is that the deceased father of the petitioner was brutally assaulted inside the jail causing serious injuries to him, resulting in his sudden death on 04.03.2014. The petitioner had then filed a complaint before the Human Rights Commission, Bihar, Patna as also before the I.G., Prison, D.G.P., Bihar & other authorities for making independent inquiry and taking appropriate action, however, to no avail.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that though the Bihar State Human Rights Commission, Bihar, Patna, has prima facie arrived at a conclusion that the case in hand is not a case of death caused by fall but death caused by violence, as such a case of homicide but had directed the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur to appoint an inspecting team in the matter and complete investigation as soon as possible, thus had declined to grant any compensation. Thereafter, a final report was submitted by the police on 31.03.2018 putting the case under the category of “Mistake of Facts”. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the deceased father of the petitioner has been killed by the jail authorities and no proper investigation has been done by the police, adequate compensation be granted to the petitioner.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted by referring to the counter affidavit filed in the present case that the deceased father of the petitioner, namely Late Ramadhar Chaudhary, prisoner at that time, was remanded to judicial custody in the District Jail, Ara on 17.12.2013, by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara, in connection with Udwant Nagar P.S. Case No.352 of 2013, registered under Sections 341/323/448/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and on his custody warrant, his age was mentioned as 72 years by the Ld. Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara.
5. At the time of entry in the prison, health screening of the deceased father of the petitioner was conducted by the Medical Officer of the District Jail, Ara and he was found to be suffering from CHF, cardiac disease (pacemaker implanted), as well as COPD (Asthma). After 10 days of remaining in the prison, the deceased father of the petitioner complained of pain in the right leg, cough and CHF, whereafter he was admitted in the jail hospital of the District Jail, Ara on 27.12.2013 as an indoor patient and was provided with the requisite treatment by the Medical Officer of the prison. In the night of 04.03.2014, at around
Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. vs. Smt. Sukamani Das
Babubhai Muljibhai Patel vs. Nandlal Khodidas Barot
Compensation for custodial death necessitates proof of unnatural death; not every death in custody qualifies under the compensation scheme.
The court emphasized the importance of evidence in proving unnatural death or negligence, highlighted the challenges of examining disputed questions of facts in a writ petition, and noted the limitat....
The state is strictly liable for unnatural deaths in custody, necessitating compensation for the victim's family under Article 21 of the Constitution.
State is liable for failing to protect individuals in police custody, requiring compensation for unnatural deaths under Article 21.
The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence showing ill-treatment or negligence by jail officials in the custodial death.
The state is vicariously liable for custodial deaths due to negligence in ensuring safety and must compensate the victims' representatives for violations of fundamental rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of strict liability for the negligence of the police in cases of custodial deaths, emphasizing the fundamental rights of prisoners an....
In cases of custodial death, pending investigation does not preclude compensation claims; negligence by authorities is presumed when violence is indicated, necessitating Magisterial inquiry.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.