SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Jhk) 459

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
R. BANUMATHI AND SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, JJ.
Baronika Bodra - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 5645 of 2013
Decided on: 1st April, 2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner:Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Shivani Verma, J.C to A.G

The court's decision emphasized the petitioner's right to seek appropriate compensation through legal remedies.

Headnote:

Compensation - Custodial Death - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Section 18 - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought direction for outstanding compensation for the custodial death of her husband and further compensation, claiming that the amount awarded by the National Human Rights Commission (N.H.R.C.) was inadequate.

Finding of the Court:

The court observed that the N.H.R.C. recommended an amount of Rs. 1 lakh as monetary relief, and later recorded the payment of Rs. 5 lakhs to the petitioner. The court found a typographical mistake in the N.H.R.C.'s order but disposed of the writ petition, giving the petitioner liberty to seek appropriate compensation through a fresh writ petition or a civil suit.

Issues: Outstanding compensation for custodial death, adequacy of compensation awarded by N.H.R.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case but allowed the petitioner to seek appropriate compensation through legal remedies.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, giving the petitioner liberty to seek appropriate compensation through legal remedies.

ORDER

By the Court - The present writ petition is filed seeking for a direction upon the respondents to pay Rs.4 lacs as outstanding compensation to the petitioner as directed by the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, (in short N.H.R.C.) for custodial death of the petitioner’s husband and further seeking for a direction upon the respondents to pay a further compensation of Rs.10 lacs to the petitioner, since Rs.5 lac compensation awarded by N.H.R.C. is inadequate.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Rebka Topno, wife of Rawt Topno had filed a criminal case, which was registered as FIR No. 21 dated 23.2.2009 in Murhu Police Station for the offence under Section 376 IPC and the petitioner’s husband, Nobel Bodra, was arrested by the Investigating Officer on 23.2.2009 and kept in the police custody. The deceased, Nobel Bodra, was subjected to custodial torture by the police officers, due to which the deceased, Nobel Bodra, died in police custody on 24.2.09 at Murhu Police Station. The deceased, Nobel Bodra, was survived by the following kins:-

Name             Relation

Shree Iliyas Bodra        Father

Helen Bodra          Mother

Beronika Bodra     Wife

Jayshree Bodra Daughter (unmarried)

Neha Bodra          Daughter (unmarried)

Belson Bodra        Son

3. In FIR No. 21 dated 23.2.09, final report was filed and in the criminal case, all the witnesses have turned hostile and the co-accused, Sudarsan Ayend was acquitted. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that a false case was filed against the deceased only for the purpose of harassing him, as a result of which he died in the police custody on 24.2.09.After the death of the deceased, Nobel Bodra, a U.D. case was registered as Murhu Police Station case No. 1/2009 dated 24.2.09. The death of deceased, Nobel Bodra, in police custody, was also reported in various newspapers including in Prabhat Khabar (Hindi Edition) newspaper dated 25.02.09. The father of the deceased, namely, Iliyas Bodra, filed complaint before the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi and the N.H.R.C. sent the communication stating that State of Jharkhand has paid monetary relief of Rs. five lakhs to the petitioner and that the complaint is closed since the recommendation is complied with.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has not been paid Rs.5 lacs as recommended by the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, instead she was paid Rs.1 lac through cheque. According to the petitioner, the custodial death of the petitioner’s husband was due to harassment and torture while being in police custody and therefore, the respondent-State of Jharkhand is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking direction upon the respondents (i) to pay Rs.4 lacs as outstanding compensation to the petitioner as directed by the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, for custodial death of the petitioner’s husband and (ii) to pay a further compensation of Rs.10 lacs to the petitioner as Rs.5 lacs compensation awarded by the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, is inadequate.

5. We have heard Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shivani Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State.

6. From the materials submitted by the petitioner, it is seen that on receipt of the complaint of Sri Iliyas Bodra, the father of the deceased, Nobel Bodra, on 17.08.2011, the National Human Rights Commission has inter alia, observed and held as under:

“The Government of Jharkhand was asked to show cause why monetary relief u/s 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 be not given to the next of kin of Nobel Bodhara who committed suicide in the lockup of P.S. Muhru, Khunti. The State Government has conveyed that it has no objection.

In view of the concession made by the State Government, we recommend that an amount of Rs. One lakh be paid to the next of kin of the deceased as monetary relief. Compliance report with proof









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top