The main legal point established is the obligation of the state to protect fundamental rights, the power of courts to grant relief in public law proceedings, and the need for thorough enquiries into custodial deaths.

ORDER :

Shri D.S. Chauhan, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri S.N. Seth, Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, seeking the following relief’s :

“7. It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents be directed to make enquiry in the matter of under trial custody death of Shri Ramesh Jatav husband of the petitioner who died on 25-7-2015 in custody. The petitioner be allowed compensation and any other relief like service to her major son etc. Any other relief in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.”

3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that husband of the petitioner, namely, Ramesh Jatav, was arrested on 30th March, 2015 by Police Station Bhagchini, District Morena in Crime No. 45/2015 for offence under sections 392, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and section 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act. While the husband of the petitioner was lodged in District Jail Morena, he expired on 25-7-2015. It is pleaded in writ petition that on 25-7-2015, the son of the petitioner had met with his father Ramesh Jatav in jail and at that time, the husband of the petitioner was hale and hearty and did not make any complaint of his chest pain. However, on 25-7-2015 itself, the husband of the petitioner died in suspicious circumstances and there were certain ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. The petitioner was constantly requesting for conducting an enquiry, but no response was given to the request made by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the husband of the petitioner was falsely implicated in criminal case concocted by complainant Ramkishan. It is further submitted that the police did not allow the petitioner to see the dead body of her husband and the dead body of her husband was handed over only after postmortem was done. However, because of antemortem injuries on the body of her husband, the respondents should have taken an action in the matter, but nothing was done against those persons who are responsible for causing injuries to the deceased. Accordingly, prayer for enquiry as well as compensation has been made.

4. Per contra, it is submitted by the Government Advocate for the State that a judicial enquiry was conducted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena. On 25-2-2015 in between 11:30-12:00 p.m., the husband of the petitioner had informed the Head Constable about pain in the chest and accordingly, he was sent to District Hospital by Jail Ambulance and an information was also given to the Police Station Kotwali, Morena. The pre-MLC report dated 25-7-2015 given by the Medical Officer, Morena has been filed as Annexure R1. (However, Annexure R1 is not pre-MLC report but it is an information sent by Medical Officer on duty to the police about the death of deceased Ramesh Jatav). It is further submitted that the postmortem was done by the Medical Board and certain ante- mortem injuries were found. However, in the opinion of doctor, the cause of death of the deceased was Cardio-respiratory Failure. Accordingly, the judicial enquiry was conducted and JMFC, Morena has given a finding that the death of the deceased was because of Cardio-respiratory Failure and not because of any injury caused to him. It is further submitted that the husband of the petitioner had a criminal history and apart from the case in which he was arrested, one more offence in Crime No. 71/2014 was registered by Police Station City Kotwali, Morena for offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

5. The Jail Superintendent, Morena also adopted the return filed by other respondents. It is further submitted by the respondents that as the death of the husband of the petitioner was natural, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation.

6. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties.

7. I have gone thro