1. - For the death of her husband in a jail, the petitioner, a widow, has knocked the doors of this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband, Ajit Singh, was serving his sentence in the District Jail, Alwar. On 01.03.2003, while in jail custody, he was severally beaten up by the other prisoners and by the guards of the Jail. Because of the injuries sustained by the petitioner's husband, he expired on the same day. Shri Satish Sharma, a Jailor, lodged a FIR for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 Indian Penal Code against Jay Singh, Rishpal, Bhagwan, Sharwan, Pappu @ Yashwant and other jail inmates. According to the FIR, the police had arrested, Ajit Singh, who was absconding and had lodged him back in the District Jail. Since Ajit Singh had absconded from the jail, the above-named persons and other inmates assaulted him. He was rescued by Leelaram, Deepchand, Trilok and Sitaram. Around 4' O clock, in the evening, his condition deteriorated. Therefore, he was sent to the hospital. But, the doctor at the hospital declared him dead. After a thorough investigation, a challan was submitted against ten persons and the trial commenced. However, vide judgment dated 20.09.2003, the District & Sessions Judge, Alwar acquitted all the accused persons. Despite the acquittal, the State did not file any appeal against the acquittal order. According to the petitioner, the accused persons were acquitted only because the eye-witnesses and the other witnesses had turned hostile during the trial. The petitioner has, further, claimed that she is a poor and hapless lady, who has three children to look after. Since, she finds it extremely difficult to financially look after the welfare of the children, since she has already lost the sole bread earner of the family, she has approached this Court seeking compensation under the writ jurisdiction.

2. Mr. Praveen Balwada, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that admittedly on 01.03.2003, the petitioner's husband was lodged in the District Jail, Alwar. According to the FIR, he was assaulted by the inmates. These two facts have not been controverted by the State itself. Although, the accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court, the fact remains that Ajit Singh had died within the jail premises after being assaulted by the inmates. In fact, while acquitting the accused persons, even the learned trial Court had observed that Ajit Singh had died while he was in the custody of the District Jail. Although, the learned trial Court had acquitted the accused persons because of the lack of evidence, but it had directed the Chief Secretary to hold an inquiry into the matter. Furthermore, the petitioner has lost the bread earner of the family, because of the omission committed by respondent No.3, the Jailor of the District Jail, Alwar. Hence, the State is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. In order to buttress his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Death of Sawinder Singh Grover, RE [1995 Supp. (4) SCC 450] , People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India & Anr. [(1997) 3 SCC 433] , Amitadyuti Kumar v. State of West Bengal & Ors. [(2000) 9 SCC 404] and State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council of India & Anr. [(2003) 8 SCC 546].

3. On the other hand, Mrs. Parinitoo Jain, the Addl. GA for the State, has contended that since the accused persons were acquitted by the learned trial Court, it cannot be said that Ajit Singh had died due to the physical assault by the inmates in the jail. Therefore, the State is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. It is the paramount duty of the State to protect the people. The State is not only the trustee of the people, but while dealing with the custody of a convicted prisoner, it is the custodian of the inmates of the jail. Hence, an onerous duty lies on the custodian to ensure the safety and