Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Sabita Nishank – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prayers for compensation due to negligence. (Para 1) |
| 2. factual circumstances surrounding the husband's death. (Para 2) |
| 3. negligence of jail authorities and their obligations. (Para 3) |
| 4. judgment on state accountability and compensation. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner inter alia with the following prayer:
i. the Opp. Parties shall not be directed to pay the adequate compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) to the petitioner for the premature death of her husband due to latches and negligence by not providing proper adequate treatment facilities, diet and medicines to her husband inside the Nimapara jail,
(iii)and be pleased to hold under the facts and circumstances the petitioner is liable to the relief sought for;
If the Opposite Parties fail to show-cause or show insufficient cause, the said rule be made absolute in granting the compensation prayed for:
And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.
2.1. It is contended that even though Petitioner’s late husband was a chronic Diabetic patient from the year 2008 and such fact was within the knowledge of the jail authority, b
State authorities are vicariously liable for negligence leading to custodial death, with victims entitled to compensation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The right to life under Article 21 includes the right to adequate medical treatment for prisoners, and failure to provide such treatment can lead to state liability for compensation.
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 state is strictly liable for unnatural deaths in custody, necessitating compensation for the victim's family under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court underscored the state's liability for custodial deaths and established a precedent for compensating victims against police violence.
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.
State is liable for failing to protect individuals in police custody, requiring compensation for unnatural deaths under Article 21.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
