Back
2010 Supreme(Guj) 289
2010 (3) GCD 2302 (Guj)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi
Kakudiben Penubhai Vahoniya
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors.
Special Criminal Application No. 1901 of 2005—Decided on 08/09/2010
Appearance :
Mr. A.R. Lakhia, for the Applicant No. 1.
Ms. C.M. Shah, APP for the Respondent No.: 1.
Rule Served, for the Respondents No. 2 - 6.
Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts petitioner is entitled to have independent investigation and award of compensation.
Headnote:Head Note :
S.C.A. — Death in police custody — Allegation of beating — Claim for investigation by independent Agency and to award compensation — Scope — Sustainability — Finding as to.
Held :
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the deceased died on account of police beating. Inquest report, postmortem report and statements of doctors clearly establish these facts.
There is thus no evidence whatsoever of the deceased having succumbed to the injuries caused by police beating in the lock-up. [Para 3]
It is thus clear but for the negligence on part of the administration from the time deceased was brought before the police station on previous day by the village till he tragically ended his life, there were procedural lapses on part of the police officials. State being principal employer cannot escape liability at-least to pay compensation to wife of the deceased. [Para 4]
With respect to quantum of compensation, Court does not propose to go into precise calculation but award ad-hoc compensation leaving it open to the petitioner to seek further remedy from the competent Civil Court. [Para 6]
Law Laid Down :
Where death is in police custody on account of procedural lapses on part of police officers, Government can not escape liability at least to pay compensation to wife of deceased.
Akil Kureshi, J.—This petition has been filed by wife of deceased Penubhai Panglabhai Vahoniya who died in police lock up on 10.9.2005. It is her case that her husband died due to police beating and that investigation into the said allegations should be handed over to independent agency. She has also prayed for compensation for the unnatural death of her husband in the police custody.
2. Briefly stated facts leading to the petition are as follows :
2.1 It is not in dispute that husband of the petitioner was arrested by the police on 9.9.2005 at 4:15 hours in connection with FIR being C.R. No. I-11/2003 involving offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 read with Section 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. He was kept in Dhanpur police station lock-up room. He was produced before the Court and released on bail. However, in connection with another Chapter case No. 271/2005, he was once again arrested at 20:30 hours on 9.9.2005 and kept in Dhanpur police station lock-up. At about 7 O’ clock in the morning on 10.9.2005 said Penubhai Panglabhai Vahoniya was found hanging from the neck with one end of a shawl, other end of which was tied to the iron rods of toilet of the lock-up room. Inquest was carried out in presence of Executive Magistrate. On account of death in police custody. Magisterial inquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. He recorded statements of several persons including the police officials, present petitioner and other relatives of deceased as well as doctors who had carried out the postmortem of the dead body.
2.2 In his report, which Sub-Divisional Magistrate forwarded to the District Magistrate, Dahod under letter dated 04.10.2005, he concluded that death of deceased Penubhai Panglabhai Vahoniya was on account of suicide by hanging. He was categorical on the issue that allegations of wife and other relatives of the deceased that the prisoner died due to police beating is not supported by any evidence. He however, found following irregularities on part of the police officials:
(i) As per the statement of PSI, Dhanpur on 08.09.2005 some villagers of village Khalta Garbadi had caught deceased Penubhai Panglabhai Vahoniya and brought him before Dhanpur police station. Who these persons were and why they had caught deceased was not verified by the PSI. No complaint was also recorded with respect to this incident. He did not take care to find out with respect to which offence deceased was brought before the police by the villagers.
(ii) When the deceased was arrested in connection with C.R. No. I-11/2003 on 9.9.2005 at 4:15 and thereafter once again when he was arrested at 20:30 on 9.9.2005 in connection with the Chapter case, members of the family of deceased Penubhai Panglabhai Vahoniya were not informed. Only Sarpanch of the village was intimated.
(iii) On 09.09.2005, PSO Mohanbhai Sultanbhai Minama was in-charge of night duty. His seat was right opposite the lock-up. When he left his position, he ought to have stationed some other person for looking after, which he did not do. On account of this, during his absence incident seems to have taken place which shows negligence on part of the PSO.
2.3 District Magistrate, Dahod in his communication dated 13.12.2005 to the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Gandhinagar stated that the position of police lock-up in Dhanpur police station is right opposite the seat of PSO from where he can keep eye on the movement of prisoners. Further in the toilet of police lock-up there is only half door. Therefore, if a prisoner is standing up, his movements can be seen despite which the prisoner could hang himself from the iron rods of the toilet window only on account of negligence on part of the police employees on duty. He therefore, conveyed his agreement with the report dated 04.10.2005 of the magisterial inquiry.
3. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the affidavits and other documents on record, I find no su
