The court affirmed that custodial deaths necessitate compensation reflecting rights violations, applying Motor Vehicle Act standards for calculating damages.

JUDGMENT :

Renuka Yara, J.

Heard Sri Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home for appellants; Sri C. Prathap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Palle Sri Harinath, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae.

2. This Intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 12.03.2024, wherein, the writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 vide W.P.No.30961 of 2012 has been allowed awarding compensation of Rs.7,20,000/-. After deducting the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which has already been paid, the appellants were directed to pay compensation of 6,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of death of deceased i.e. 04.07.2012 to till realization to respondent No.1.

3. The back ground facts giving rise to the appeal are that on 02.07.2012 morning, the convict prisoner No.9772 i.e. Dasari Narsimulu has stolen scissors from the prisoner barber and on 04.07.2012, he attacked another convict prisoner No.6917 i.e. Karolla Venkaiah and five other convict prisoners and caused serious bleeding injuries. The said Karolla Venkaiah was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment and he died on the same day while undergoing treatment. The deceased Karolla Venkaiah is husband of respondent No.1.

4. The National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the kin of the deceased convict prisoner No.6917 i.e. Karolla Venkaiah. The said amount has been disbursed to respondent No.1 and her kin.

5. Upon filing of the aforesaid writ petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- by respondent No.1, the appellants herein opposed the same on the ground that the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi directed the Government of Telangana to award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the next kin of the deceased and the said compensation has already been disbursed by placing strict adherence to the Rule No.576 (1) of the Telangana State Prison Rules, 1979.

6. The learned Single Judge upon hearing both the parties has awarded compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- to respondent No.1 and directed the appellants herein to pay Rs.6,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum after deducting an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which has already been paid to respondent No.1.

7. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed claiming that the Jail authorities have provided sufficient security in the jail ensuring that prisoners therein do not get harmed and there is no negligence on the part of the Jail authorities in providing proper medical treatment to the deceased prisoner in the Jail hospital as well as in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad.

8. According to the appellants, the death of the deceased Karolla Venkaiah ought not to have been held as custodial death as the death occurred while he was undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad.

9. Learned Government Pleader for Home for the State of Telangana appearing for the appellants submitted that as per Rule 576 (1) of the Telangana State Prison Rules, 1979, compensation has been paid and therefore, there is no further cause for making payment of compensation as directed by the learned Single Judge. He further submitted that application of Minimum Wages Act for determining the income of a convict prisoner is erroneous. As per G.O.Ms.No.203 Home (Prisons.B) Department, dated 06.08.2010, the Government has accorded enhanced incentives (wages) at Rs.70/- to Skilled Prisoners working in open air jails, Rs.50/- to Skilled prisoners working in prison industries and Misc., and for Rs.30/- to Semi skilled prisoners employed in prison industries and services like sweeping etc. In case, the compensation is calculated on the basis of said G.O., it would amount to Rs.1,02,960/- and the said amount has already been paid to respondent No.1 pursuant to the order passed by the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that there is no