By the Court.—We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.

2. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for compensation of Rs. 50 lacs on account of the custodial death of the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 5.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition, as culled out from the petition is, that the husband of respondent No. 1 was a permanent class-IV employee in Food Corporation of India and was drawing a salary of Rs. 10,500 per month. Hari Lal the husband of petitioner No. 1 did not have any criminal record. It transpires that the deceased was arrested in 2003 by the police and was taken to Police Station Rani ki Sarai, District Azamgarh where it transpires that some altercation occurred between Hari Lal and the Station House Officer who shot him at close range resulting in his death. A first information report was lodged under Section 302,504 and 342 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Azamgarh, based on which, an investigation was made and subsequently, a charge-sheet has been filed. The Court has been informed that the trial is going on against the accused police officials.

4. Since a hue and cry was raised and based on the interference made by the National Human Rights Commission, the State of Uttar Pradesh gave a compensation of Rs. 3 lacs to the widow of the deceased, i.e., petitioner No. 1 in the year 2008.

The petitioners contend that the deceased Hari Lal was the sole bread earner of his family which comprised of his spouse petitioner No. 1 and four children who were all totally dependant upon the deceased. It was contended that a sum of Rs. 3 lacs granted as compensation was wholly inadequate and that the Court should exercise its discretionary power and enhance the compensation.

5. The aforesaid facts are admitted by the State Government in their affidavits filed before this Court. Custodial death did occur in the police station and the trial is going on. The learned Standing Counsel however contends that there is no provision to pay compensation for custodial death. We, however, find that the State Government admits paying compensation of Rs. 3 lacs. We are further of the opinion that Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that the right to life is guaranteed to all citizens of India. It is the onerous duty of the State to ensure that its citizens live a life with dignity. It is also the onerous duty to ensure protection to its citizens. When a person dies in custody it becomes the duty for the State Government to pay adequate compensation to the dependants of the deceased. The mere fact that no provision has been created by the State Government cannot be a ground to escape the liability. Admittedly, the State Government has paid some compensation which according to the respondent is adequate but according to the petitioners the same is inadequate.

6. Custodial death is one of the worst crime in the civilized society governed by the rule of law as held by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and others, 1997 (1) SCC 416. The Supreme Court held that the rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution requires it to be jealously and scrupulously protected. The expression “life or personal liberty” in Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity and thus it will also include within itself a guarantee against torture, assault or custodial death by the State and its functionaries.Personal liberty, thus, is a sacred and cherished right under the Constitution.

7. The question that arises is the grant of relief to the heirs of a victim of custodial death on the ground of invasion of his rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

8. In our opinion, it is not enough to relegate him to the ordinary remedy of a civil suit to claim damages for the tortuous act of the State. The petitioners have complained of the infringement of the indefeasibl