The State is liable to compensate for custodial deaths, and torture in police custody is prohibited under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Anil Dev Singh, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition whereby the petitioners claim compensation from the respondents on account of the death of Sonu, husband of the first petitioner and son of the second petitioner, in police custody. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :-

ONE Deepak @ Deepu, an accused in case FIR No. 364/96 under sections 24/54/59 of the Arms Act, escaped from the custody of the police party belonging to police station Sarojini Nagar. A case FIR No. 374/96 under section 224 Indian Penal Code was registered against him at Police Station Sarojini Nagar. It is not disputed that police party belonging to Police Station Sarojini Nagar picked up deceased Sonu, brother of accused Deepak, on August 29, 1996. On the next day, viz. , August 30, 1996 the dead body of Sonu was brought to the casualty of Safdarjung Hospital by the staff of Police Sta- tion Sarojini Nagar. The body bore fifty-one injuries. These facts are not denied by the respondents. Rather they have been admitted in the counter-affidavit. The relevant paras of the counter-affidavit read as follows :-

". . . While conducting the search for accused Deepak alias Deepu, the police party also brought Sonu (deceased) brother of Deepak to the police station, who died in police cus- tody. The dead body of Sonu as left at the casualty of Safdarjang Hospital by the staff of police station Sarojini Nagar. . .

XX xx xx

THE contents of para 7 of the petition as stated are admitted to the extent that the husband of the petitioner was having 51 injuries on his body as per post mortem report No. 866/96 of All India Institute of Medical Sciences and on account of these injuries and his death a case FIR 375/96 under section 304 Indian Penal Code, P. S. Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, was registered and respondents 3 to 10 have been arrested and challaned in the case. . . .

XX xx xx

. . . S. D. M. Huaz Khas Shri K. K. Dahiya had conducted the enquiry and prima facie held responsible respondents 3 to 10 for the death of the husband of petitioner No. 1. . . "

( 2 ) THUS, it is clear from the above that Sonu, who was brought to the police station, died in police custody. His dead body bore extensive tell tale injuries as per the post mortem report of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. From the counter-affidavit it also appears that the Sub Divi- sional Magistrate, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, had conducted an enquiry into the cause of death of Sonu and prima facie came to the conclusion that respondents 3 to 10 were responsible for his death. FIR No. 375/96 under section 304 Indian Penal Code, P. S. Sarojini Nagar, was registered against respondents 3 to 10. They were arrested and challaned in the case.

( 3 ) IT is significant to note that Sonu was not accused of having committed any offence, yet he was picked up by the men in uniform who later brought him dead to the Safdarjang Hospital with fifty-one injuries on his body. There is no justification nor any has been put forth in the counter-affidavit for what happened to him.

( 4 ) SUCH incidents strike at the very foundation of rule of law. Deprivation of life without due process of law is banned and barred under Article 21 of the Constitution. Yet such incidents take place. Those who think that they can detect and eradicate crime by resorting to crime are in fact stoking the fire which they want to extinguish. The police can surely interrogate a person accused of an offence, but it can not torture him to extract information otherwise tyranny will replace law. Despite several judgments by the Apex Court including Saheli, a Women s Resources Centre, through Ms. Nalini Bhanot and others v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters and others, (1990) 1 SCC 422, and the High Courts, the force is preferred TO to scientific methods to elicit information. This must stop. The State can not claim sovereign immunity for the tortious act of public ser- vants leading to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document