JUDGMENT

A.K. GOEL, C.J. : This petition seeks a direction for an independent enquiry into the death of a child labour beaten to death.

2.The case of the petitioner is that on 14.11.1996, one Rajunu Khan was working in a Bidi Company in Seikh Bazar was beaten to death by the owner and died on the spot. The matter was published in the daily newspaper “The Samaja” on 18.11.1996. The parents of the deceased are poor and did not take remedies. The Magistrate conducted the enquiry by getting the deadbody from the grave and found injuries on the deadbody. The deadbody was buried by the owner of the Bidi Company without informing the parents of the victim. On postmortem being conducted, the case was found to be homicidal death.

3.A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Odisha by the Inspector-in-charge, Lalbag Police Station. According to the said affidavit, on 15.11.1996, the Inspector-in-charge started enquiry and found that Nanda @ Rajun Khan, son of Mohammad Khan of Seikhbazar, aged about 15 years was working in Tarabidi Company at Seikhbazar and expired on 14.11.1996 and was buried at Idga Kabarstan by his kith and kin and others. A case was registered and inquest was held in the presence of the Magistrate. The deadbody was recovered from the grave and sent for Postmortem. According to Postmortem report, the injuries were antemortem and could have been caused by blunt forcetuma. The injuries were fatal to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The brother of the deceased made a statement that deceased expired due to fall from the top of the building to the watchman at the burial ground.

4.The matter has been pending for the last seventeen years. In the meanwhile, after investigation, three accused were sent up for trial, but the witnesses examined by the prosecution did not support the prosecution version and stated that they did not have any direct knowledge. Accordingly, the accused who were sent up for trial were acquitted vide judgment dated 17.7.2002 in Sessions Trial No.218 of 2001 (State v. Apu @ Md. Afsar and others) rendered by Addl.Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.1, Cuttack.

5.Though none appears for the petitioner, we have heard learned Government Advocate. He submitted that the investigation was proper and the State was not guilty of failure of its duty and thus, no compensation was payable.

6.Question for consideration is whether the responsibility of the State ends merely by registering a case, conducting investigation and initiating prosecution and whether apart from taking these steps, the State has further responsibility to the victim. Further question is whether the Court has legal duty to award compensation irrespective of conviction or acquittal. When the State fails to identify the accused or fails to collect and present acceptable evidence to punish the guilty, the duty to give compensation remains. Victim of a crime or his kith and kin have legitimate expectation that the State will punish the guilty and compensate the victim. There are systemic or other failures responsible for crime remaining unpunished which need to be addressed by improvement in quality and integrity of those who deal with investigation and prosecution, apart from improvement of infrastructure but punishment of guilty is not the only step in providing justice to victim. Victims expects a mechanism for rehabilitative measures, including monetary compensation. Such compensation has been directed to be paid in public law remedy with reference to Article 21. In numerous cases, to do justice to the victims, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed payment of monetary compensation as well as rehabilitative settlement where State or other authorities failed to protect the life and liberty of victims. For example, Kewal Pati v. State of U.P. (1995) 3 SCC 600 (death of prisoner by co-prisoner), Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. State of Bihar, (1991) 3 SCC 482 (failure to provide timely medical aid by jail authorities, Chairman