This application under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Smti Susila Bora, mother of Shri Motilal Bora. The relief prayed for by the petitioner in this application are as follows :- (i) A judicial of other appropriate enquiry in order to go into the whole gamut of the circumstances leading to the mysterious death of Motial Bora; (ii) Compensation of Us. 5 (five) lakhs to the petitioner of the death of Motilal Bora in custody. 2. The brief facts are as follows-The petitioner is a widow aged about 55 years. She belongs to Scheduled Caste community. The second son of the petitioner was Motilal Bora and he was an employee of Guwahati Refi­nery at Noonmati. He was a graduate and was prosecuting his studies in the Law College. He was about 30 years of age. On 16. 10.89 the said Motilal Bora was arrested by the police on an alleged charge at about 10.30 PM. Motilal had defiled the statue of Mahattna Gandhi at Pachali Chak at Amolapatty near Phukan Hall at Barpeta. He was kept in the Than during the night On the next day ie 17.10 89 he was taken by police to the Barpeta Civil Hospital for medical examination. He was examined by the Doctors and was taken back to Thana. Thareafter, the Motial Bora was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, on 11.10.89 and he was remanded to jail hajot till 30.10.89. At about 5.45 PM on 1710.89 the pethoner and the other members of the family came to know that Motilal Bora had died in the jail custody. Before that it is alleged that at 1,30 PM when the petitioner went to the Police station to supply meals to Motilal the petitioner observed certain abnormality in the physical features of Motial From a look at Motilal the petitioner could realise that Motilal was ill-treated wholn town. It was reported to the petitioner that Motilal committed suicide in the jail at aboat 5.25 PM. The whole incident was mysterious and the petitioner believed that the death of Motilal was due to some foul play. The post mortem was done at about 2.00 PM on 18.10.89 and the dead body was cremated at 4 0; PM It is further stated that the monthly income of Motilal was Rs. 2,000/- per month. Applications were filed before different authorities mike an enquiry but nothing was done. The post mortem was done at about 2.00 PM on 18.10.89 and the dead body was cremated at 4 0; PM It is further stated that the monthly income of Motilal was Rs. 2,000/- per month. Applications were filed before different authorities mike an enquiry but nothing was done. Hence, this application with the prayer as indicated above. This Court on the first prayer directed the District Magistrate, Barpeta to hold an enquiry and accordingly an enquiry was held by Shri HK Hazarika, Additional District Magistrate and he submitted an enquiry report on 8.6.90 The finding of the enquiry report, inter alia, is as follows. "Bat the facts remains that the suicide by late Bora could have been averted had-there been alertness, scriusness and sincerity on the part of the jail personals on duty on 17th Oct/89 (afternoon) in discharging their duties and responsibility after searching and sending 6 new UIPs inside the jail. Lack of alertness, sniousncss and sincerity of the jail personnels on duty and 'go as you like attnude of the jail authonry in the afternoon of 17th Oct/89 was responsible for cemmittin suieide by are Bora in the latrine attached to Cockshed of the jail hospital" The Superintendent of District Jail,Barpeta also submitted a report on 21.1.19 wherein he reported the Motilal Bora committed suicide by hanging by neck from the ceiling wooden beam of the latrine by his own shirt. Though it is stated that there was postmortem, the postmortem report has not been produced before this Court. The respondents in the present petition are: 1. The State of Assam 2- Secretary. Home Depti; 3. Director General of Police; 4. Jailor, District Jail. Barpeta; 5. Officer-in-charge Barpeta PS. 3. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by one Jatindra Nath Sarma, Under Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Political (A) Department on behalf of the respondents. The statement made in paragraph 3 to 8 in the affidavit are stated to be matters of record, but no record has been produced before this Court. Save and except the Enquiry Report which is Annexure A to the this affidavit-in-opposition. of Assam, Political (A) Department on behalf of the respondents. The statement made in paragraph 3 to 8 in the affidavit are stated to be matters of record, but no record has been produced before this Court. Save and except the Enquiry Report which is Annexure A to the this affidavit-in-opposition. It is stated in the paragraph 6 that the cause of death as revealed in post mortem report is due to suicide and not for any other reasons, the deponent craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to refer to and rely upon the post mortem report at the time of hearing of the case. But no such post mortem report was produced. As usual at the time of hearing nobody appears on behalf of the respondents to argue the matter. I have heard Dr. H. Das, Advocate for the petitioner. The first part of the prayer has already been granted inasmuch as an enquiry has been held leading to the death of Motilal Bora. Now only question left for determination is whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. 5 (five) lakhs and/or any other amount as claimed by her. The law on the point regarding death in the custody and the payment of compensation has been fettled by a series of decisions of the Apex Court of the land and the latest case which is reported in 1993 Vol. 11 SVLR (C; 150 (Saiti Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa & others). The facts of that case are that one Suman Behera aged about 22 years was taken into custody by the police on 1.12.87 at about 2.00 PM the next day on 2.12.87, 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 Jarikela Railway Station. The allegation made was that it was a case of custodial death. The prayer made in the petition was for award of compensation to the petitioner for contravention of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The defence of the State of Orissa and others was that Suman Behera managed to escape from police custody and met with an accident in the Railway track. In short, the allegation of custodial death was denied and consequently the liability of the State of Orissa to pay compensation. The defence of the State of Orissa and others was that Suman Behera managed to escape from police custody and met with an accident in the Railway track. In short, the allegation of custodial death was denied and consequently the liability of the State of Orissa to pay compensation. In that case the Supreme Court considered the following cases. 1. (1983) 3 SCR 508 (Rudul Shah vs. State of Bihar & another); 2. (1984) 1 SCR 904 (Sebastian M. Hongray vs. Union of India & others); 3. (1985) 4 SCC 677 (Bhim Singh vs. State of JelK); 4. (1990) 1 SCC 422 ( Saheli. A Women Resources Centre & others vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters & others); 5. ;1991) 2 SCC 373 (Mate of Maharashtra & others vs. Ravikant S. Patil). The Supreme Court pointed out as follows : "(i) It may be mentioned straightway that award of compensation in a proceedings under Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts, is a remedy available in public law, based on strict liability for contravention of the fundamental rights of the citizen, even though it may be available as a defence in private law in an action based on tort. (ii) The Supreme Court by considering Bhagalpor Blinding case and the case of Union Carbide Corporation held that the Court is not helpless and the wide powers given to the Court may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution, which enable the award of monetary compensation in appropriate cases, where that is the only mode of redress available. (iii) Dr. Anand, J. in a concurring judgment has pointed out as follows: "..-the Courts take into account not only the interest of the applicant and the respondent but also the interests of the public as a whole with a view to ensure that public bodies or officials do not act unlawfully and do particularly where the fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 21 is concerned. Law is in the process of development and the process necessitates developing separate public law procedures as also public law principles. Law is in the process of development and the process necessitates developing separate public law procedures as also public law principles. It may be necessary to identify the situa­tions to which separate proceedings and principles apply and the Courts have to act firmly but with certain amount of circumspection and self restraint, lest proceedings under Article 32 or 226 are misused as a disguised substitute for civil action in private law." 4. In the backdrop of the law as laid down by the Apex Court, now let us decide the present case. It is finding of the learned Additional District Magistrate that the lack of alertness, sincerity and seriousness of the jail personnel's on duty and go as you like attitude of the jail authority in the afternoon of 17th October, 1989 was responsible for committing suicide by late Motilal Bora. So. it is found that the official who were entrusted with the performance of duty, did not perform their duties properly and as such they are liable to compensate the petitioner. 5. The next question is that what will be the amount of compensation. As stated earlier the petitioner was aged about 30 years and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month being an employee of Guwahati Refinery at Noonmati. But as because he brought to an end of his life on his own, certainly he is not entitled to the amount of compensation as claimed. But this mishap has occurred due to the gross negligence on the part of the jail personnels and in that view of the matter the State of Assam should pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. The amount of compensation is assessed at lower scale as the petitioner committed suicide. With this direction the writ application is disposed of.