IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
N. Kotiswar Singh, Kh. Nobin Singh, JJ.
Smt. Mayengbam - Appellant
Vs.
State of Manipur - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 560 of 2013
Decided On : 26-04-2018
Custodial Death - Compensation - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 368, 34 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition claiming compensation for the custodial death of her husband. The deceased was arrested and later found dead in police custody with signs of torture. An enquiry was conducted, and the District Judge found that the police were responsible for the death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased died in police custody due to injuries inflicted by the police, and not by hanging himself as claimed by the police. It awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 to the petitioner, to be paid by the State respondents.
Issues: The issues included wrongful confinement, cause of death, negligence of the police, and the handling of the deceased's family members.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the police were responsible for the custodial death and awarded compensation to the petitioner. It also directed departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings against the responsible police personnel.
Final Decision: The court awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 to the petitioner, to be paid by the State respondents. It also directed departmental and criminal proceedings against the responsible police personnel.
N. Kotiswar Singh, J.
Heard Mr. Th. Ranjit, learned counsel for the petitioner; heard also Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Senior Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed by Smt. Mayengbam (O) Debala Leima, the wife of the deceased, namely, late Mayengbam Biren Meitei, resident of Lamjao Makha Leikai, claiming relief, inter-alia, for payment of compensation to the extent of Rs. 72,00,000/- on account of custodial death of her husband on 02.06.2013.
3. The facts in brief leading to the filing of this petition can be stated as follows.
4. The husband of the petitioner, late Mayengbam Biren Meitei who was about 32 years old at the relevant time was arrested by the personnel of Waikhong Police Station on 31.05.2013 at about 11:00 a.m. and handed over to Moirang Police Station on the same day at 2:30 p.m. by signing a memo dated 31.05.013. It has been stated that the arrest of the aforesaid Biren Meitei was done by the Waikhong Police Station at the request of Moirang Police Station. It has been stated by the petitioner that her husband was arrested in connection with the elopement of one Km. Y. Subadani Devi, D/o. Y. Kalachand Meitei of Thanga Lawai with her husband. The said Subadini Devi was also arrested by the police along with M. Biren Meitei and they were handed over to Moirang Police Station. It has been alleged that after his arrest on 31.05.2013, her husband M. Biren Meitei was brought to the residence of one N. Ibopishak Singh of Moirang and the relatives of her deceased husband were asked to come to the Police Station for negotiation in connection with the aforesaid elopement of Y. Subadini with her husband Biren Meitei. It has been also alleged that several calls were made by the police and other relatives and friends of M. Biren Meitei were also asked to come to the police station for negotiation and compromise relating to the aforesaid elopement. It seems the relatives did not go to the police station. Thereafter, one Smt. M. Amutombi, who is an aunt of Biren Meitei, received a call at about 1:57 p.m. on 02.06.2013 informing her that M. Biren Meitei had suffered from a heart attack and accordingly, the family members of M. Biren Meitei rushed to the Moirang Police Station. However, to their shock and surprise, on reaching the police station, they found the said M. Biren Meitiei hanging inside the Lockup of Moirang Police Station with a small piece of/string of woolen shawl torn from a heavy and thick black woolen shawl which was said to had been provided by the Police during their custody. Subsequently, the autopsy was conducted on the dead body which gave the report that cause of death was due to hanging. It is also alleged by the petitioner and the relatives that several marks of torture were noticed on the dead body of said M. Biren Meitei at the time of conducting post mortem. The scrotum was also found to be swollen with severe bruises and blood was found oozing out from the penis in large quantity. At the time of conducting funeral, one of the arms and a leg fell down out of the main body showing signs of bones fractures. Accordingly, it has been alleged that it was a clear case of custodial death due to torture while her husband was in the custody of the police. It has been also stated that her husband was a mason by profession and was earning about Rs. 500/- per day and thus used to earn about Rs. 15,000/- or more per month for maintaining a large family having seven dependants namely,(i) M. Rameshwar, 75 years (father) (ii) M. Amutombi, 70 years (mother)(iii) the petitioner (wife), (iv) M. Sanathoi, 14 years (daughter) (v) M. Chaibi Devi, 12 years (daughter) (vi) M. Thoiba, 8 years (son) and (vii) M. Arepa, 7 months (son). It has been submitted that at the time her husband was only about 32 years old, and was the sole bread earner who could have sustained the family for a long period. However, because of his untimely d
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.