The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the State to pay compensation for an established infringement of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly in cases of custodial deaths.

Elipe Dharma Rao, J.

The appellant herein has filed W.P.No.22366 of 1993 praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take appropriate action against the culprits involved in her husband Natarajan Chettiars custodial death and jointly or severally to pay fair and adequate damages and compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the family of the deceased.

2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband Natarajan Chettiar was a pawn broker dealing with buying and selling of artificial diamonds and jewels on commission basis and in the month of August, 1993, one Kullah Achary alias Subramani, who was also in the same business, had given some jewels to her husband for selling and on 11.9.1993, the 5th respondent with a police party came to Vaniyambadi and enquired her husband and others about the jewels and only at that point of time, her husband came to know that the jewels were stolen ones; that the 5th respondent required her husband and others to come with him to Tiruvannamalai Police Station and demanded huge amount as bribe; that on receiving the information about the arrest of her husband, she sent her elder son Sridhar and thereafter her another son Anandhan to Tiruvannamalai Police Station and at last she came to know that her husband died on 11.9.1993 because of the police excesses and the dead body was thrown in Thachambattu Reserve Forest. She further submitted that she is a poor widow having a large family consisting of three daughters and three sons.

3. The respondents 4 and 5 filed separate counter affidavits, denying the allegations made in the writ petition. The 5th respondent would further submit that based on the complaint lodged by one Pandurangan, advocate about the loss of a gold chain weighting 7.5 sovereigns, he registered a case in Cr.No.417 of 1993 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and based on the secret information that the deceased Natarajan Chettiar was involved in dealing with stolen ornaments, he brought him for the purpose of interrogation at Tiruvannamalai and during interrogation, the said Natarajan Chettiar informed him that he had only sold the gold chain weighing about 30 gms. for a sum of Rs.5,000/= to one Vilasu and pleaded ignorance about having received any gold chain weighing 7.5 sovereigns, at which point of time, the complainant Advocate was also present.

4. The 5th respondent further submitted that while he was conducting investigation, he received a telegram that his mother sustained a fracture and hence he asked Natarajan Chettiar to come back the following week with information about the gold chain and he left Tiruvannamalai after seeking permission and returned only on 14.9.1993. He would further state that in the enquiry conducted under Section 145 of the Police Standing Orders by the RDO, Tiruvannamalai, the statements of Mr.Pandurangan, Advocate, who is the complainant and Dr.Thirugnanasambandam who conducted the post-mortem were recorded and the said Pandurangan deposed that no third degree methods were used and the post-mortem doctor deposed that the colour changes noticed on the body of the deceased was due to puterification changes and not due to any homicidal violence and after completion of the enquiry, the RDO sent a report dated 10.6.1994 holding that the Police Department was not responsible for the death of Mr.Natarajan Chettiar. However, a further enquiry was conducted by another RDO of Tiruvannamalai and after a cursory examination of materials and without examining anyone, he has forwarded a report to the Government, holding that the Police Department was responsible for the death of Mr.Natarajan Chettiar. He would further state that he do not know as to how Mr.Natarajan Chettiar died and that the writ petitioner is trying to make a fortune out of misfortune and is trying to pre-judge the defence, which is open to him during trial.

5. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.741 Public (Law a