When negligence of Police personnel caused death, Government is vicariously liable to pay reasonable compensation.

(Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.08.2000 made in Writ Petition No.12633 of 1999.)

P. Sathasivam, J.

The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.08.2000 made in Writ Petition No.12633 of 1999, in and by which the learned Judge directed the writ petitioner to approach the civil Court for compensation.

2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed in the writ petition.

3. According to the petitioner, he is a resident of No.93, Madhav Rao Garden, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004, living with his wife, three daughters and one son. On 12.04.1997, at about 8.00 p.m. when his son Ramesh with his two friends was crossing the road near Luz Corner Signal, Mylapore, Chennai, he was taken by the Traffic Police Constable forcibly threw him into a standing Police Jeep. This was informed to the petitioner by the nearby shop owners. Immediately, i.e., at 9.15 p.m. he went to E.1 Mylapore Police Station and enquired about his son. They informed him that his son escaped from the Police Jeep. He left the police station on the presumption that his son would return home safely. However, on 13.04.1997, he saw the newspaper "Dinakaran" Tamil daily, Chennai Edition, in which the photo of dead body of his son was published stating that his identity is not known. He contacted the E.1 Mylapore Police Station, but they gave evasive reply. Hence, he lodged a complaint on 13.04.1997 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police to take appropriate action against the responsible persons, who committed the murder of his son. The local residents also protested by staging demonstration in front of E.1 Mylapore Police Station. Due to protest and pressure from the public, Press and political parties, the Government acceded to the request for appointment of a Commission to enquire into the circumstances that led to the death of his son Ramesh.

4. On 15.04.1999, the Government announced a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and appointed Mr. Justice Maruthamuthu, a retired Judge of this Court as Commissioner to enquire into the death of his son Ramesh. In the enquiry, he participated and produced several evidence. He came to know from the newspaper reports that the Commission gave its finding and the same was tabled on the Tamil Nadu Assembly on 26.11.1998. In the report it was found that the action of the traffic police Inspector R. Garudapathy and Police Constable G. Velayutham was not in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and finally recommended for a further payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. Thus, totally a sum of Rs.1 lakh was paid to the petitioner as compensation for the death of his son Ramesh.

5. It is clear from the information furnished and published in the newspapers that the Police Constable and Inspector working under the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, second respondent herein were responsible for the death of his son Ramesh. It is also clear that the police had arrested his son without any reasonable cause or whatsoever and they did not even inform his whereabouts to the petitioner, who is none else than his father. Once a person was taken into custody by the Police and as long as he is under their custody, the Police are responsible for the safety and security of the person concerned. It is the claim of the petitioner that his son was taken into custody without any default on his part and beaten up severely and then he was taken in a police jeep to the police station. In order to escape from the consequences the police personnel dumped his son's dead body into the nearby Buckingham Canal, creating a scene as if his son escaped from the custody and fell into Buckingham Canal. Therefore, the State, which is bound to ensure the safety and security of its every citizen, is liable to pay just compensation to the affected persons.

6. According to the petitioner, his son