Kerala High Court Affirms State Liability for Civilian Injuries During Attack on Notorious Prisoners in Custody

Ernakulam: In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Kerala and its officials, upholding a trial court's decree awarding damages to a civilian injured during an attack on under-trial prisoners outside a jail. The court, presided over by Justice Sathish Ninan , affirmed that the State has a duty of care towards the general public when handling notorious criminals, and failure to take adequate precautions constitutes negligence leading to liability.

The judgment was rendered on February 12, 2024 , in RFA No. 3 of 2010 , challenging the judgment in OS 246/2000 of the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

Background of the Incident

The case stemmed from an incident on July 16, 1999, around 1:50 p.m., when the plaintiff, Sudheer Kumar, an employee of Indian Coffee House, was walking along a footpath in front of the Attakulangara Sub Jail. At that moment, an explosive was thrown at accused persons who were under judicial custody and being brought to the jail. The attack resulted in severe injuries to the plaintiff, the death of one accused, and injuries to others. The plaintiff suffered a 50% permanent disability due to the injuries. He subsequently filed a suit claiming ₹10 lakhs in damages from the State.

Arguments Presented

The appellants (State of Kerala and its officials) contended that there was no negligence on their part in maintaining law and order and that they were not liable for damages. Relying on UK judgments like Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire and Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police , they argued that the police's duty is primarily to the general public and does not extend to individual members without satisfying the tests of duty of care, foreseeability, and remoteness. They submitted that reasonable care was taken by deputing two police constables and that there was no prior intelligence report warning of the attack.

Conversely, the respondent (plaintiff) argued that the State was negligent and liable for the injuries. Drawing upon Indian precedents, including Veeran v. T.V. Krishnamoorthy , Samir Chanda v. Managing Director, Assam State Transport Corporation , Ashwani Gupta v. Government of India , and State of Kerala v. K. Cheru Babu , the plaintiff highlighted the established principles of negligence requiring a legal duty to take care, breach of that duty, and consequential damage. The plaintiff emphasized the "neighbour" test from Donoghue v. Stevenson , arguing that the State ought to have reasonably foreseen injury to persons like the plaintiff who were in the vicinity. The notorious nature of the accused prisoners and the fact that the incident was a "charted out planned day-light murder" (as per undisputed averments) demonstrated the high risk involved. The plaintiff argued that the State's constitutional duty under Article 21 to protect life and personal liberty mandates providing a safe environment, and failure to do so incurs liability, especially given the outdated nature of the State immunity principle in a constitutional democracy.

Court's Analysis and Decision

Justice Sathish Ninan carefully considered the arguments and the legal principles cited. The court applied the test of duty of care, focusing on whether the State reasonably ought to have contemplated the possibility of injury to persons like the plaintiff.

The court observed that the location of the incident (front of the jail), the notorious background of the under-trial prisoners (accused of murder, attempted murder, etc., and involved in gang rivalry), and the undisputed fact that the attack was a "charted out planned day-light murder" were all relevant factors.

Crucially, the court held that given these circumstances, the possibility of an attack by a rival gang was well within the realm of "reasonable foreseeability". Therefore, the State had a duty to take adequate precautions when transporting such criminals. The court found that merely deputing two police constables was insufficient, especially at sensitive points like the jail entrance.

Quoting extensively from Veeran v. T.V. Krishnamoorthy , which explained the concepts of negligence and the "neighbour" test based on foresight, the court reiterated that what is material is the foreseeability of the danger , not necessarily the exact manner in which it materializes. The court also referenced the Delhi High Court's reasoning in Ashwani Gupta , which strongly articulated the State's constitutional duty under Article 21 to ensure the security and safety of its citizens, holding that failure to do so amounts to a breach of constitutional mandate and can lead to liability for damages. The Supreme Court's view in State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati regarding the abrogation of State immunity in independent India was also noted.

Based on this analysis, the High Court concluded that there was a clear duty of care cast upon the defendants, and an omission regarding the same. The court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's finding on liability.

Regarding the quantum of damages, the High Court reviewed the award of ₹5 lakhs by the trial court, which included compensation for permanent disability (₹3 lakhs), loss of future earning (₹1 lakh), loss of amenities (₹70,000), and pain and suffering (₹30,000). The court found that the quantum granted was not excessive considering the nature of the injuries and the resulting 50% disability. The interest rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree was also deemed appropriate.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Kerala High Court dismissed the State's appeal, affirming the trial court's judgment. The ruling reinforces the principle that the State's duty to maintain law and order includes a responsibility to take reasonable care to protect the public from foreseeable harm, particularly when engaging in activities involving known risks, such as the movement of notorious criminals. The judgment underscores the tortious liability of the State for negligence resulting in injury to citizens, aligning with the constitutional mandate of ensuring life and personal liberty.