BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. DHANABAL, J.
R. Senthil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Home Secretary, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P.(MD) No. 11610 of 2013
Decided On : 26-07-2023
Custodial Death - Writ Petition - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Crime No.427 of 2012 - Sections 176(1) and 176(1-A) Cr.P.C. - Compensation - Nilabati Behera Vs State of Orissa - Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, Chennai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu - Sarala Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation - National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the transfer of a case related to the custodial death of his brother to a competent officer, departmental action against the involved police officials, and adequate compensation for the victim's family.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the case had already been transferred to the fifth respondent and departmental action had been initiated against the police officials. The court also awarded compensation of Rs.30,00,000 to the deceased's family members.
Issues: Transfer of investigation, departmental action, and compensation for custodial death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court has the power to award compensation for custodial death under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court followed the method adopted in MCOP cases to calculate the compensation amount.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction for the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000 to the deceased's family members as compensation.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the fourth respondent to transfer the case in Crime No.427 of 2012 dated 03.10.2012 on the file of the sixth respondent and entrust the same to the fifth respondent for investigation of the case by a competent officer and file a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the time stipulated by this Court pertaining to the custodial death of the petitioner’s brother R.Vengatesan S/o.Ramanujam (26/11) at Emaneswaram Police Station, Paramakudi Taluk, Madurai District on 03.10.2012 by the respondents Nos.8 to 15 and initiate necessary departmental action against the respondents Nos.7 to 15 within the time stipulated by this Court and consequently directing the first respondent to provide adequate compensation of Rs.50 Lakshs to the victim’s family due to custodial death made by the respondents Nos.8 to 15.)
1. This writ petition has been filed to direct the fourth respondent to transfer the case in Crime No.427 of 2012 dated 03.10.2012 on the file of the sixth respondent and entrust the same to the fifth respondent for investigation of the case by a competent officer and file a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the time stipulated by this Court pertaining to the custodial death of the petitioner’s brother R.Vengatesan S/o.Ramanujam (26/11) at Emaneswaram Police Station, Paramakudi Taluk, Madurai District on 03.10.2012 by the respondents Nos.8 to 15 and to initiate necessary departmental action against the respondents Nos.7 to 15 within the time stipulated by this Court and consequently, to direct the first respondent to provide adequate compensation of Rs.50 Lakshs to the victim’s family due to custodial death made by the respondents Nos.8 to 15.
2. According to the petitioner, he is the brother of one Vengatesan. The said Vengatesan was leading very peaceful life with his wife and new born child. Unfortunately, the said Vengatesan was implicated by the seventh respondent herein in a jewel theft case in C.C.No.116 of 2010 and the said case is pending. One of the accused namely A.Ayyappan, S/o.Anjudhasan, who is arrayed as A2 in the above said case, was known to his brother as they were living nearby in their childhood at Paramakudi for some years. Out of the friendship only, without knowing the true intention and nature of their act, his brother helped the accused persons to sell the jewel in the said case.
3. Mr.Sivakumar, Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town, who is the seventh respondent herein, Mr.Saravanan, who was working as Sub- Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Police Station along with Mr.Enathi Muniasamy, who is ninth respondent, in order to get unlawful advantage over his brother’s plight, started demanding and obtaining huge money from them under the pretext that the seventh respondent would implicate his brother in other cases falsely, if he was not satisfied the illegal demand of the seventh, ninth and tenth respondents. On 03.10.2012, when his brother went to Paramakudi to appear before the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi in C.C.No.116 of 2010, the eighth to fifteenth respondents on the instructions given by the seventh respondent, took him to Emaneswaram Police Station and he was detained there. In the name of enquiry, his brother was brutally attacked and tortured by the respondents 8 to 15 and thereby, his brother sustained injuries all over his body and succumbed to death. The said incident had happened on the very same day and next day i.e. on 04.10.2012 at about 06.00 am., the dead body of his brother was taken by the police personnels, as if his brother suffered with illness while he was in custody.
4. While his brother was kept at Government Hospital, Paramakudi, he noticed several blood stains and injuries in all over his body. While facts are being so, the respondent police came up with the false case alleging that the police personnel
The court has the power to award compensation for custodial death under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to award compensation for custodial torture under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the calculation of compensati....
The State is responsible for tortuous acts of its employees, and the award of compensation against the State is an appropriate remedy for the infringement of fundamental rights under Article 21 of th....
The State has a constitutional obligation to ensure the safety of individuals in police custody; custodial deaths demand scrutiny and compensatory measures for rights violations.
The court discussed the legal provisions related to compensation in custodial death cases and applied the principles of compensation applicable in the Motor Vehicles Act to determine the compensation....
The judgment establishes the need for stringent action against custodial torture and the failure to curtail such incidents, emphasizing the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate and the governm....
Compensation for custodial death necessitates proof of unnatural death; not every death in custody qualifies under the compensation scheme.
The state is strictly liable for unnatural deaths in custody, necessitating compensation for the victim's family under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of strict liability for the negligence of the police in cases of custodial deaths, emphasizing the fundamental rights of prisoners an....
The court emphasized the responsibility of the police to ensure the safety of individuals in their custody and the entitlement of dependents to compensation in cases of custodial death.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.