Order On Board

08.10.2021

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondent authorities to pay monitory compensation to the petitioner on account of custodial death of her son- Bedram Sahu.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner's son was detained in Central Jail, Raipur in Cell No. 8 and one Narendra Kumar Sahu was also detained in the same Cell, who was convicted by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Session Trial No. 69/2012 for committing offence punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. He would further submit that on 21.11.2016 at about 4:00 a.m., the co-prisoner Narendra Kumar Sahu gave multiple blow to her son by scissor thereafter, the deceased was taken to Jail Hospital where he was examined by Dr. A. Khandekar and after examination, he was declared dead. In pursuance of the incident took place on 21.11.2016, FIR No. 0344/2016 has been registered against co- prisoner Narendra Kumar Sahu at Police Station- Ganj, District- Raipur for committing offence punishable under Section 303 of I.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that as the incident took place when deceased was in custody and due to non-providing security measure by the jail authorities, the deceased succumbed to death, therefore, it is custodial death, as such, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation. He would refer to the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Divisional Bench of this Court in Saroj Shrivas Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others1, wherein Hon'ble the Division Bench after considering the various law points on this subject has given its finding and defined the custodial death as under:-

“9. Thus, from the material on record it is clear that when the husband of the petitioner was in custody his homicidal death took place on account of development of complication due to assaults given to him in jail by the inmates. In such a situation, the death of husband of the petitioner can be safely termed as 'custodial death'. Even though a prosecution has been launched against the co- prisoners responsible for causing injuries to the deceased detenu and they have also been punished in accordance with law, yet the jail authorities are not absolved of their responsibility to ensure his life and safety in the jail. There is no manner of doubt that due to failure on their part to take precautions and to provide sufficient security in the jail ensuring that the prisoners kept there do not get harmed and due to gross negligence on the part of the jail authorities in providing proper medical treatment to deceased detenu in the jail hospital, husband of the petitioner was subjected to serious injuries inside the jail and ultimately he succumbed to those injuries. As it was the bounden duty of the jail authorities to protect the life of an under trial prisoner lodged in the jail andas in the instant case jail authorities had failed to ensure safety and security to the said unfortunate under- trial accused, the State being the employer of the

1 WPCR No. 15 of 2012 (decided on 18.04.2018)

jail authorities, must be held responsible for the custodial death of the husband of the petitioner herein. The Supreme Court and High Courts leaned in favour of holding the State responsible for the negligence of its officers. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to extract hereunder a few judgements of the Apex Court as well as High Courts.

10. Leading case dealing with custodial death and compensation is the matter of Saheli v. Commr. of Police reported in (1990) 1 SCC 422, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus;-

"10. It is now apparent from the report dated December 5,1987 of the Inspector of the Crime Branch, Delhi as well as the counter- affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner of Police,Delhi on behalf of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and also from the fact that the prosecution has been launched in connection with the death o