Court established that mere allegations of custodial torture are insufficient; claims must be substantiated by evidence of violation of fundamental rights to warrant compensation.

1. The petitioner is the widow of late Benu Sukla Baidya and has filed this petition alleging that her husband is the victim of police torture and died in custody.

2. The undisputed facts are that Sri Benu Sukla Baidya (deceased) was accused in Police Case No. 21 of 2013 registered at Police Station Kamalpur under S.457 and S.380 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not disputed that he was arrested by the police on 21.04.2013 as a suspect in the case. Benu Sukla Baidya was produced by the Investigating Officer in the Court of the SDJM, Kamalpur on 22nd April, 2013. A prayer was made that the accused be remanded to police custody for 10(ten) days. The Magistrate vide his order dated 22nd April, 2013 allowed 5(five) days police remand and also directed that the accused should not be unnecessarily harassed and should be got examined by a Government Medical Officer after every 48 hours. The accused was also directed to be produced before the Court of the SDJM, Kamalpur on 26.04.2013 along with medical report of the accused.

3. The petitioner' s husband was therefore, admittedly in the custody of the police. The dispute arises hereinafter. According to the petitioner her husband was tortured and killed by the police whereas the case of the police is that the deceased attempted to commit suicide. He was found hanging and his body was pulled down and was shifted to the hospital at Kamalpur. Thereafter he was brought to the hospital at Agartala and then taken to Kolkata. Unfortunately, he expired at Kolkata.

4. The law is well settled that when death of an under - trial prisoner takes place in custody then the Court must be fully satisfied that the case set up by the police is a truthful case. In case the Court finds that the story put up by the police is false or is not believable then the Court may raisea presumption that death has taken place due to third degree methods applied by the police. However, at the same time, every death of an under - trial prisoner in custody cannot be presumed to be a death due to torture by police or due to the illegal acts of the police. Each case has to be decided on its own merits.

5. Sri Roy Barman has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in D.K. Basu v. State of W. B. , 1997 (1) SCC 416 : 1997 CriLJ 743 (SC) wherein the Apex Court laid down a number of guidelines to be followed by the police while interrogating the under - trial prisoners. The Court noted with concern that custodial violence and abuse of police power is wide - spread all over the world. The Apex Court further held that no person could be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The following observations of the Apex Court are relevant.
"22. Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the rule of law. The rights inherent in Art.21 and Art.22(1) of the Constitution required to be zealously and scrupulously protected. We cannot wish away the problem. Any form of torture of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Art.21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. If the functionaries of the Government become law breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself thereby leading to anarchanism. No civilised nation can permit that to happen. Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a policeman arrests him 'Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest'. These questions touch the spinal cord of human rights jurisprudence