Hegde, J. -- These two appeals arise from a judgment of the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay made in writ Petition (Criminal) No. 204 of 1993. Even though the points for our consideration in these appeals have narrowed down considerably because of the previous orders of this Court in these appeals as also some previous judgments of this Court, we think it necessary to very succinctly refer to the facts to the extent that is necessary.

Some of the policemen on duty in the Crime Branch Office of Nagpur city took into custody one Junious Adam Illamatti, a resident of Ajini Railway Colony on 23.6.1993. While he was in police custody, it is stated he was found dead. It is also alleged that when his wife Jarina Adam went to the police station to enquire about her husband, she was also locked up by the said police and molested. On 26.6.1993 a criminal case being Crime No. 438 of 1993 was registered for offences under Sections 302, 342, 330, 354 read with Section 34 against ten police officers. The investigation in this regard was conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, State CID (Crimes), Mr. Godbole. After investigation the said police officers were charge-sheeted for the offences mentioned hereinabove and in the trial in SC No. 416 of 1993 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, the said ten police officers were acquitted of the charge under section 302 IPC but were convicted for offences punishable under section 333 read with sections 34, 342 read with sections 34, 355 read with section 34, and a. punishment of 3 years' RI with fine for the principal offence was awarded by the said Sessions Judge to the abovementioned ten police officers.

A criminal appeal against the said judgment and conviction is pending before the High Court.

On 29.9.1993 Criminal Writ Petition No. 204 of 1993 was filed initially by the respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 508 of 1996 before us i.e. Christian Community Welfare Council of India. Subsequently, the abovementioned Jarina Adam, the wife of the deceased was also impleaded as Petitioner 2. In the said writ petition, inter alia, a direction was sought to the respondent State to conduct a proper inquiry into the custodial death. There was a prayer to direct the respondent State to pay compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to the second petitioner. The High Court by the impugned order issued various directions in regard to the laying down of guidelines to prevent and check custodial violence and procedures to be followed by the police while arresting any person as also procedures to be followed by the police after arresting such person, procedures to be followed in arresting a female person, manner in which such female person is to be detained, etc. The High Court also directed the State Government to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 to the second petitioner, the widow of the deceased. During the course of judgment the High Court directed the State Government to enquire into the conduct of the 10 Mr Godbole to find out whether there was any lapse on his part in the arrest/his investigation. The Court also observed in the body of its judgment that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 directed to be paid as compensation to the second petitioner may ultimately be recovered from the police officers concerned pro rata depending upon their involvement in the death of the deceased. Against the said judgment apart from the two, appeals mentioned hereinabove the 10 Mr Godbole also filed an SLP which later on came to be withdrawn by him with liberty to approach the High Court.

At this stage it is necessary to note that this Court while granting leave has confined the same to consider whether the directions issued by the High Court in sub-paras (iv), (v) and (vii) of the operative part of the judgment in para 29 need to be retained, modified or deleted. There is no dispute in regard to this limited scope of the appeal. Sub-paras (iv) and (v) of the operative portion of the judgme