MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, INDORE BENCH
P.K. JAISWAL & D.K. PALIWAL, JJ.
Lawyers for Justice (Non-Government Organization) – Petitioner
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 5895 of 2014 (PIL)
Decided On : 1-10-2015
Negligence - Custodial Death - Constitution of India, Article 21, Jail Manual Rule 178(A)(1) - The court discussed the negligence of the State and its officers in protecting the fundamental rights of a citizen and the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court highlighted the duty of care on the part of the State to ensure the safety of citizens in its custody and the obligation to protect the fundamental rights of prisoners. The court also emphasized the need for compensation for the infringement of fundamental rights and the liability of the State for the tortuous acts of its public servants. The judgment provided directions for compensation to the family of the deceased, review of punishments awarded to the responsible officers, and measures to ensure the security of prisoners in hospitals.
Fact of the Case:
Ramdayal, an under trial prisoner, was shot dead in a hospital while in custody of the State. The petition sought an enquiry to fix liability on the officers responsible for neglecting their duties, monetary compensation for the victim's family, and other reliefs. The State and its officers were accused of neglecting their official duty to protect the fundamental rights and life of a citizen.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the negligence of the jail guards and other respondents led to the unfortunate incident, and the provisions of the Jail Manual were not complied with. It held that the State and all respondents were equally responsible for the security lapses. The court also emphasized the duty of the State to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and the need for compensation for the infringement of those rights.
Issues: The issues included the negligence of the State and its officers in protecting the fundamental rights of the victim, the compliance with the provisions of the Jail Manual, and the responsibility for the security lapses leading to the custodial death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the duty of care on the part of the State to protect the fundamental rights of citizens in its custody, and the liability of the State for the tortuous acts of its public servants. It also emphasized the need for compensation for the infringement of fundamental rights and the public law proceedings to redress the wrong done.
Final Decision: The court directed the State to pay compensation to the family of the deceased, review the punishments awarded to the responsible officers, and take various measures to ensure the security of prisoners in hospitals.
1. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming reliefs as under:-
"11.1 That, kindly be issued a writ, order or direction to the respondent No. 1 State to make an enquiry for fixing liability of the concern officers, who are responsible for neglect in official duties and protect the fundamental rights of victim Ramdayal and take appropriate departmental and criminal action against the concern officers.
11.2 That, kindly be issue appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents to pay monetary compensation to the family of the victim Ramdayal, who was murdered in state custody.
11.3 That, kindly be issued writ, order or direction to the respondent No. 1 state to submit a report of action taken by state to this Hon'ble Court.
11.4 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the fact and circumstances to the petitioner may also kindly be granted."
2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Ramdayal S/o Sunder Lal, resident of Harda was facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC in Sessions Trial No. 356/12 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kannod, District Dewas and was detained as under trial prisoner in Sub-jail Kannod, District Dewas. He was referred for treatment on 21.06.2014 by the order of Additional Sessions Judge Kannod and was admitted in hospital of Central Jail, Indore. On 16.07.2014, under trial Ramdayal was sent to M.Y. Hospital, Indore for treatment and admitted in Bed Number 12 Ward Number 17 of M.Y. Hospital, Indore. On 21.07.2014, at about 4:30 a.m. Ramdayal was shot dead by some unknown person, who came bearing Apron, in Bed Number 17 of Ward Number 17 of M.Y. hospital. It is stated that under trial prisoner murdered in the hospital while he was in custody of the State. The officers of the State failed to protect the life of the under trial prisoner. The State and its officers neglected to perform their official duty to protect the fundamental right and life of a citizen, therefore, it is necessary to fix the responsibility of the State and its officers, who neglected to perform their official duty to protect the fundamental right of the citizen and take appropriate departmental and criminal action against those officers. It is also necessary to provide monetary compensation to the family of the victim Ram Dayal by the State.
3. In reply respondent No. 1, stated that under trial Ram Dayal was undergoing treatment in M.Y. Hospital on 21.07.2014 jail warder Yashpal Dabakwal, was deputed in his security. After the incident jail warder Yashpal Dabakwal,who was on duty in M.Y. Hospital has already been suspended and departmental enquiry has been initiated against him. Show cause notice also given to jail warders Mahendra, Santosh and Yashpal who were on duty in M.Y. Hospital on 21.07.2014 and after their reply, charge-sheet has been issued against them. Warder Mahendra and Santosh have been punished with withholding of one increment without cumulative effect whereas jail warder Yashpal has been punished with withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. It is further stated that jail warders who were deputed on duty with other prisoners in M.Y. Hospital were also served with the notices. After reply to the notice, no action has been taken against jail warders Deepak Tiwari, Muzib Khan, Irfan Khan, Vimal Silawat, Meharban Singh and Rajendra Rathore as they were not found guilty. It is further stated that show cause notice was issued to Muzib Khan, incharge of warders and in pursuance of the reply filed by Muzib Khan, another show cause notice has been served upon Deputy Jail Superintendent Shri S.B. Sharan and thereafter the enquiry was conducted and the report has been forwarded to the Jail Head Quarters, Bhopal for necessary action. It is further stated that State has very seriously taken up the matter, so that such incidence do not occur in future and in the present
Neelabati Bahera vs. State of Orissa
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.