2000 Supreme(Raj) 95
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Honble J.C. VERMA, J.
Laxman - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6018 of 1996
Decided On : February 04, 2000
Ashok Misra, for Petitioner Sharda Pathak, Dy. G.A. for Respondents
Headnote:(a) Constitution of India, Art. 21 & 22(1) – Abuse of police power – Custodial death – Deceased taken into custody in evening and on the next day he was found dead – Real cause of death doubtful – Held – Independent enquiry is directed to be conducted by S.P., C.B.I., Jaipur – Interim Compensation of Rs. 50,000/-awarded. (Paras 8 to 11)(b) Criminal Trial – Death in police custody – Allegation of consumption of liquor not supported by post mortem report or medical examination – Monetary compensation of Rs. 50,000/-awarded to be paid by the State.
(2). It is the allegation of petitioner that his real brother Bajrang Lal (hereinafter called as `deceased) aged 29 years having good physique and good health, who was working as driver of truck No. RBA 4625 was involved in a minor truck accident with another truck RSQ 5009 and there was a small quarrel between the brother of petitioner and another truck driver Kishan Lal & Khalasi Mithu. A report was lodged by deceased in Police Station Chandriya as FIR No. 348/95 for the offence under Sec. 341 and 323 IPC, against the said persons on 31.10.95. The counter FIR was also reported by the driver of other truck on the same day and the truck No. RBA 4625 was taken into custody by the police. Therefore, the deceased returned back to his village and reported the matter to truck-owner Shamsuddin.
(3). On 12.11.95, the owner of the truck Shamsuddin and the deceased said to have left the village for going to police station and reached at police station. On 13.11.95 the deceased is said to have involved in FIR No. 361/95 for the offence u/Sec. 454 and 511 IPC at about 8.00 am. It is stated that he was brutally beaten up by police officials and he was taken into custody and sent to sub-jail Chittorgarh in evening of 13.11.95. The deceased died in the morning of 14.11.95 in sub-jail Chittorgarh. The post mortem was done on the same day, which is attached with the writ petition as annexure-1. The dead-body of deceased was given to petitioner on 15.11.95. The threats were given to petitioner not to raise any voice and if he raise any voice he would suffer dire consequences of the same. Some enquiry is said to have been made about causing of death of deceased. The petitioner says that because of the cruelty and atrocities having been committed by police in custody with his brother, death had been caused.
(4). Notice was issued to respondents. Reply has been filed. It is not denied that the deceased had died during custody that is next day of taking him into custody. However, it is submitted that the post mortem report as conducted by Medical Board shows the cause of death ``Shock Due to Anti Myocardial infraction commonly known as AMI, which is short of a Heart Attack. It is denied that the deceased was subjected to any cruel treatment or that he was given beating. A Magisterial Enquiry is said to have been held u/Sec. 176 Cr. P.C., but without any result. However, it is admitted that on 13.11.95 the owner of truck Shamsuddin and Bajrang Lal had reached in Chandriya in connection with getting the said truck released. It is stated in written statement that on 13.11.95 the deceased had consumed excess liquor and said to have entered in the house of one Rajendra Prasad with the intention to commit theft and he was caught hold of in the house of Rajendra Prasad, who raised hues and cry and the deceased was apprehended and he was given beating by residents of the area. An FIR was got recorded being FIR No. 361/95 for the offence u/Sec. 454 and 511 IPC. It is stated that the deceased might have suffered some injuries at that time. He was remanded to Judicial Custody by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Chittorgarh. The deceased was sent to sub-jail Chittorgarh at 4.00 pm on 13.11.95, but he died on the next morning.
(5). It is not denied by respondent that the deceased had died in judicial custody. The post mortem report has been placed on record, conducted on 14.11.95. In post mortem report nothing has been mentioned of the fact that the deceased had taken any liquor. It is mentioned in the post mortem