Back
INDRAJIT MAHANTY, S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Rasheda Khatun – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for compensation due to custodial death. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. circumstances leading to jamal hossain's death. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments on the cause of death and responsibility. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. contradictory statements regarding injuries. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. custodial violence cannot be ruled out. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. principles governing compensation for custodial deaths. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 7. order for compensation and conclusion of the petition. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - In this writ petition, a prayer has been made to call upon the State to pay compensation for the death of Jamal Hossain who died due to custodial torture in police lockup during the intervening night between 14.09.2021 and 15.09.2021. The writ petitioners are the wife, mother and children of the deceased who have made the following prayers:
(i) Issue Rule upon the respondents to show cause as to why, in the nature of mandamus and /or Order or direction shall not be issued whereby entrusting the investigation of Sonamura P.S Case No.2021 SNM 092, U/s-304/34 of IPC to CID Tripura, for carrying out the investigation under the supervision of the Hon'ble High Court
Custodial torture leading to death violates Article 21; State is liable for compensation due to vicarious liability for its officials' actions.
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.
The court underscored the state's liability for custodial deaths and established a precedent for compensating victims against police violence.
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....
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....
State liability arises for custodial deaths due to police negligence, affirming the right to compensation under Article 21.
The court discussed the legal provisions related to compensation in custodial death cases and applied the principles of compensation applicable in the Motor Vehicles Act to determine the compensation....
The court emphasized the necessity for independent investigations into custodial deaths and affirmed the intrinsic protection of the right to life under Article 21, mandating scrutiny in cases of sus....
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
