Compensation for custodial death necessitates proof of unnatural death; not every death in custody qualifies under the compensation scheme.

JUDGMENT :

MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.

1. The appeal at the behest of the writ petitioner is directed against an order dated April 21, 2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPA 18826 of 2024.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition negating the prayer of the writ petitioner for a compensation for a death in custody. The learned Single Judge held that at a stage when only the charge-sheet was submitted before the Court, it was not prudent to summarily direct for compensation without exhausting the provisions of law.

3. The writ petitioner happens to be the son of one Gafur Molla who died in police custody. The writ petitioner filed the writ petition being WPA 18826 of 2024 seeking a direction for registration of First Information Report in respect of the death of his father in custody and for grant of compensation for the custodial death of his father. The writ petitioner also sought the initiation of departmental enquiry against the concerned officers responsible for illegal detention and custodial torture of his father resulting in his death on September 2, 2023. According to the case made out by the appellant, his father Gafur Molla was picked up by the officials of Excise Department on August 28, 2023 and was detained at Balarampur Excise Camp. He was neither formally arrested nor produced before the Magistrate. Consequently, as stated by the writ petitioner, no memo of arrest, seizure list or case diary existed to document the detention of his father. It was further contended on behalf of the appellant in the writ petition that the deceased father of the writ petitioner was subjected to severe physical assault, while in custody, resulting in multiple external injuries and ultimately his father Gafur Molla died as a result of such injuries while in custody. It was further contended that inspite of custodial torture resulting in death of the father of the writ petitioner, the local police authorities did not register a case promptly and failed to take any action against the erring officials. The officials of Excise Department involved in the incident are continuing to serve with their respective departments.

4. By filing the instant appeal, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the writ petitioner seeking a direction for award of compensation for the custodial death of the father of the appellant and a direction for initiation of departmental enquiry against the erring officers of Excise Department as well as police officers responsible for the custodial death and inaction on the part of the police authorities. According to the appellant, learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, granted limited reliefs. An FIR over the incident was registered. A special investigation team (SIT) was formed which conducted the investigation of the case. The investigation by the special investigation team resulted in charge-sheet under Section 167 /218/330/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against two accused persons whereas a charge-sheet under Sections 167 /218/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was submitted against other three accused persons. It was contended that the learned Single Judge refused to grant compensation for custodial death of his father. This refusal to the grant of compensation which has been challenged by the writ petitioner in the present appeal.

5. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the injuries found on the person of his father, as evident from his post mortem report, prima facie establ