Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. VERMA, Dr. A. S. ANAND AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.*
Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera, Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 488 of 1988
Decided on 24-3-1993.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. S.Ganesh, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Addl. solicitor General, Mr. A. K. Panda and Mr. Naresh Kumar Sharma, Advocates with him for Respondents.
Constitution of India,1950 – Articles 21,32 and 226 - Custodial death - Payment of compensation - Dispute liability - Amicus curiae - Defense of respondents is that managed to escape from police custody at about on night between 1st and 2nd from Police Outpost where he was detained and guarded by Police Constable he could not be apprehended re after in spite of a search and dead body of was found on railway track next day with multiple injuries which indicated that he was run over by a passing train after he had escaped from police custody - In short on this basis allegation of custodial death was denied and consequently respondents responsibility for unnatural In view of controversy relating to cause of death of a direction was given by this Court on to District Judge in to hold an inquiry into matter and submit a report - Held, This Court and High Courts being protectors of civil liberties of citizen have not only power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of Constitution to victim or heir of victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon State to repair damage done by its officers to fundamental rights of citizen notwithstanding right of citizen to remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings. State, of course has right to be indemnified by and take such action as may be available to it against wrongdoer in accordance with law - through appropriate proceedings - Order Accordingly
The legal document discusses the issue of custodial death and the corresponding liability of the State. It emphasizes that the protection of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21, is a primary obligation of the State. When a death occurs in police custody, the State is responsible for providing a plausible explanation for the injuries and circumstances leading to the death. If the explanation is unsatisfactory or inconsistent with the evidence, the inference is that the death resulted from police brutality or torture.
The Court highlights that the judiciary has both the power and the obligation to provide relief to victims or their heirs in cases of fundamental rights violations, including custodial deaths. This relief can extend beyond mere declaration of rights infringement to include monetary compensation, which is recognized as an effective remedy in public law for violations of constitutional rights. Such compensation serves as a form of redress that not only penalizes the wrongdoer but also upholds the dignity of the individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
Furthermore, the Court clarifies that the remedy of awarding monetary compensation under constitutional provisions is distinct from and in addition to the remedies available under private law. It underscores that the courts are empowered to develop new tools and principles, including the award of damages, to ensure justice and uphold the rule of law in cases of violations of fundamental rights. The State's liability for custodial death is thus not limited by doctrines of sovereign immunity, and the courts have a duty to ensure that the State repairs the damage caused by its officers' misconduct.
The Court also discusses the appropriate quantum of compensation, taking into account the victim’s age and earning capacity, and directs the State to pay a specified sum to the petitioner. It further emphasizes that the State should take action to identify and prosecute those responsible for custodial deaths, reinforcing the accountability of public officials.
In conclusion, the document affirms that the judiciary has a constitutional mandate to ensure that violations of fundamental rights, such as custodial death, are remedied effectively through appropriate orders, including monetary compensation, thereby reinforcing the protection of civil liberties and the rule of law.
JUDGMENT
VERMA, J.:—A letter dated 14-9-1988 sent to this Court by Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera- was treated as a Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for determining the claim of compensation made therein consequent upon the death of petitioners son Suman Behera, aged about 22 years, in police custody. The said Suman Behera was taken from his home in police custody at about 8 a.m. on 1-12-1987 by respondent No.6, Sarat Chandra Barik, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Jaraikela Police Outpost under Police Station Bisra, Distt. Sundergarh in Orissa, in connection with the investigation of an offence of theft and detained at the Police Outpost. At about 2 p.m. the next day on 2-12-1987, the petitioner came to know that the dead body of her son Suman Behera was found on the railway track near a bridge at some distance from the Jaraikela railway station. There were multiple injuries on the body of Suman Behera when it was found and obviously his death was unnatural, caused by those injuries. The allegation made is that it is a case of custodial death since Suman Behera died as a result of the multiple injuries inflicted to him while he was in police custody; and thereafter his dead body was thrown on the railway track. The prayer made in the petition is for award of compensation to the petitioner, the mother of Suman Behera, for contravention of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution.
2. The State of Orissa and its police officers, including Sarat Chandra Barik, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and Constable No. 127, Chhabil Kujur of Police Outpost Jaraikela, Police Station Bisra, are impleaded as respondents in this petition. The de fence of the respondents is that Suman Behera managed to escape from police custody at about 3 a.m. on the night between the 1st and 2nd December, 1987 from the Police Outpost Jeraikela, where he was detained and guarded by Police Constable Chhabil Kujur; he could not be apprehended thereafter in spite of a search; and the dead body of Suman Behera was found on the railway track the next day with multiple injuries which indicated that he was run over by a passing train after he had escaped from police custody. In short, on this basis the allegation of custodial death was denied and consequently the respondents responsibility for the unnatural death of Suman Behera.
3. In view of the controversy relating to the cause of death of Suman Behera, a direction was given by this Court on 4-3-1991 to the District Judge, Sundergarh in Orissa, to hold an inquiry into the matter and submit a report. The parties were directed to appear before the District Judge and lead the evidence on which they rely. Accordingly, evidence was led by the parties and the District Judge has submitted the Inquiry Report dated 4-9-1991 containing his finding based on that evidence that Suman Behera had died on account of multiple injuries inflicted on him while he was in police custody at the Police Outpost Jeraikela. The correctness of this finding and Report of the District Judge, being disputed by the respondents, the matter was examined afresh by us in the light of the objections raised to the Inquiry Report.
3A. The admitted facts are that Suman Behera was taken in police custody on 1-12-1987 at 8 a.m. and he was found dead the next day on the railway track near the Police Outpost Jeraikela, without being released 1963 from custody, and his death was unnatural, caused by multiple injuries sustained by him. The burden is, therefore, clearly on the respondents to explain how Suman Behera sustained those injuries which caused his death. Unless a plausible explanation is given by the respondents which is consistent with their innocence, the obvious inference is that the fatal injuries were inflicted to Suman Behera in police custody resulting in his death, for which the respondents are responsible and liable.
4. To avoid this obvious and logical inference of custodial death,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
