Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Prabina Kumari Mohuria – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims of custodial death and violence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the incident and police actions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. opposition arguments against allegations. (Para 5) |
| 4. further judicial consideration. (Para 6) |
| 5. court's analysis and observations. (Para 7) |
Judgment :
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. Claiming compensation on the ground of custodial death of the deceased, Akash Mohuria, son of the present petitioners, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The factual matrix giving rise to filing of the present case is that on 30.01.2017 at around 12 noon to 1.00 P.M., near Gandhi Chhak in the canal road, the IIC, Jeypore Town Police Station- Opp. Party No.4 along with Opp. Party No.5 and 20 to 30 police persons caught hold the son of the petitioners and assaulted him by giving fist blows and kick blows and threatened to kill his son. The deceased-Akash Mahuria subsequently was taken to Jeypore Sadar Police Station and when the petitioner came to know that their son has died, Petitioner No.2 lodged a F.I.R on 31.01.2017 alleging death of their son due to police assault vide Annexure-1. But the said F.I.R was never registered and instead basing on the report submitte
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.
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....
State authorities are vicariously liable for negligence leading to custodial death, with victims entitled to compensation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Custodial torture leading to death violates Article 21; State is liable for compensation due to vicarious liability for its officials' actions.
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.
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....
State liability arises for custodial deaths due to police negligence, affirming the right to compensation under Article 21.
State authorities have a duty of care to ensure the safety of individuals in custody, and negligence in this duty can result in liability for custodial deaths.
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
