Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
SHEKHAR B.SARAF, MANJIVE SHUKLA
Prema Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay just and adequate compensation to the petitioner on account of unnatural death of her minor son (Sukhvinder) on February 20, 2024 in District Prison Pilibhit. The petitioner in furtherance seeks direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to ensure action against the guilty persons, who are responsible for the unnatural death of the son of the petitioner.
FACTS
1. The factual matrix of the present writ petition is delineated below:
a. A criminal case bearing case no. 742/2016, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and 3/4 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Puranpur, District Pilibhit was registered against the minor son of the petitioner, for which he had already undergone imprisonment for about three years and ten months and was enlarged on bail on February 12, 2022.
b. Petitioner’s son was required to appear before the trial court, but due to unavoidable circumstances, he could not appear. Consequently, he was arrested by the police on February 7, 2024 in
The state is strictly liable for unnatural deaths in custody, necessitating compensation for the victim's family under Article 21 of the Constitution.
State is liable for failing to protect individuals in police custody, requiring compensation for unnatural deaths under Article 21.
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.
Compensation for custodial death necessitates proof of unnatural death; not every death in custody qualifies under the compensation scheme.
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 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 court affirmed that custodial deaths necessitate compensation reflecting rights violations, applying Motor Vehicle Act standards for calculating damages.
State authorities are vicariously liable for negligence leading to custodial death, with victims entitled to compensation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The state is vicariously liable for custodial deaths due to negligence in ensuring safety and must compensate the victims' representatives for violations of fundamental rights.
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
