The court ruled that claims of negligence leading to a prisoner's death must be substantiated with clear evidence, which was lacking in this case.

1. Petitioners are dependants and legal heirs of one Gajendra Debbarma who died while in jail custody on 13.03.2005. The record would show that late Gajendra Debbarma was convicted for offence punishable under S.364A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) and sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction and sentence took place on 02.12.2004. Thus, a few months after his conviction when he was in jail, he died. A case of unnatural death was registered. Inquiry was carried out. The conclusion of the inquiry was that the prisoner had died a natural death and that there was no foul play involved. Final report to this effect was submitted on 30th June, 2006 which was later on accepted by the Court also.

2. The petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from the State authorities primarily alleging negligence of the jail authorities which led to the unfortunate death of the prisoner, basing the estimate of compensation on the earning capacity of the deceased.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there was total negligence on part of the jail authorities in providing basic medical care to the prisoner which led to his untimely death. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Re - Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons; reported in (2017) 10 SCC 658 : (AIROnline 2017 SC 486). It was the case in which the Court had discussed at considerable length the issues concerning unnatural deaths in State custody. It was held that even prisoners have their fundamental rights protected and in case of unnatural deaths in custody on account of negligence for overt acts on part of the State authorities, the next of the kin of the deceased should be compensated.

4. Reliance was also placed on the decision in case of Re - Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons; reported in (2016) 3 SCC 700 : (AIR 2016 SC 993) in which recommendation was made for comprehensive renew of jail manuals.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate opposed the petition contending that there was no foul play in the death of the deceased. In a writ petition disputed issues cannot be examined and lastly, there has been a gross delay and latches in filing the petition.

6. The question of unnatural death in custody is undoubtedly a serious issue and Courts always examine allegations of unnatural deaths in custody minutely. However, in the present case, there is not an iota of evidence suggesting that the death of the prisoner was unnatural. The inquiry report and the medical evidence along with such inquiry report would suggest that the deceased would have died of cardiac failure and that there was no foul play. Even the petitioners have not seriously alleged that the death of the deceased was on account of unnatural causes with or without any contribution from the jail authorities. Their contention that proper medical care was not given to the deceased is also not based on any strong foundation. Thus, the death of the deceased can be neither said to be unnatural nor as a result of any negligence on part of the jail authorities in providing proper medical care. That being the position, no question of compensating the next of kin to the deceased would arise. The petitioners have also approached the Court after long delay. This is not to suggest that a matter of this nature should be thrown out on the ground of delay and latches, if the petitioners can make out lack of sufficient information or wherewithal to approach the writ Court earlier. This was only to suggest that with passage of time the task of gathering material which in any case would be scanty in a case of this nature, gets more difficult. The in