The court can order compensation for custodial death even if the accused police officers are acquitted in a criminal trial, as the acquittal does not preclude a finding of liability on the part of the State.

(Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated therein, and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the Government Letter No.817/81-7 dated 24. 82 rejecting the petitioner’s claim for appropriate compensation for the loss of her eldest son, Seeralan, after calling for the records from the Respondent herein and also direct the payment of adequate compensation in terms of money in the light of the Supreme Court Judgment, in W.P.(Crl.) 1387 of 1982 delivered on 1st August 1983.) The instant petition has been filed by the mother of one Seeralan, a twenty-one year old young man, who it is alleged, was beaten by the police while in custody without any remand and done to death. She has invoked this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and sought compensation in terms of money for the loss, at the hands of the police, of her bread earner. According to the petitioner, her son was an automobile mechanic and had interest in various social activities. His involvement in providing assistance to the poor villagers was resented to by the landlords, who, it is alleged, made some false complaints to the police and branded her son a naxalite and when the petitioner and her husband learnt that the police was looking for her son, on 211. 1976, they brought him before the police themselves. Instead of interrogating him, however, the police assaulted him and not only him, the petitioner and her husband as well. They threatened, according to the petitioner, that they could see only his corpse after a month. On 11. 1977 at about noon, her son was killed by the police in Nainathiyur village near Pudupet, Thirupathur Taluk, North Arcot district. According to the police, the petitioner has alleged, they had an encounter with her son and only as a self-defence they used force which resulted in injuries to her son and on account of that he died. According to the medical report, the petitioner has alleged, her son had been hit by a yoke, his spleen had been ruptured, and his testicles crushed. This, according to the petitioner, is inconsistent with the case of the police that her son was hit in an encounter and sustained injuries which caused his death. Sub-Collector of Thirupathur held inquest on 11. 1977 and 11. 1977 and reported on 2. 1977 that the police had used excessive violence on the petitioner’s son and, “even though he was struggling for life with the wounds for over two hours, police did not take any steps to give medical attention”. The then Member of the Board of Revenue, however, was appointed to enquire into the whole matter in May, 1977. He submitted a report to the effect that,

(1) the policemen after capturing Seeralan beat him brutally and killed him;

(2) important facts were concealed from the Sub Collector’s report by the police authorities;

(3) The police filed a false complaint in order to hide their crime;

(4) the body was burnt in order to hide the crime; and

(5) the first two witnesses, Jaya and Velu, were illegally detained in police station and tortured.

The enquiry report, according to the petitioner, revealed that the police version about the death of Seeralan was concocted and the policemen (1) Kasinathan (2) Ramaswamy and (3) Sivalingam, deserved prosecution for committing the offence of culpable bomicide and for filing false complaints with Netrampalli police just in order to hide their crime. Member, Board of Revenue, further recommended that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur, North Arcot District, Veerapandian, Inspector of Police, Janarthanam, Inspector of Police Kannan and ‘Q’ Branch Inspector Henry Joseph were involved in fabricating false documents and they also deserved prosecution. Accordingly, the Government ordered for launching Prosecution and the District Collector, North Arcot, launched a case which eventually was comm