Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 231 (GAU)

Ghotovi Sema v. State of Nagaland

1995-10-31

H.K.SEMA

body1995
Heard Mr. Imti Imsong, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. EY Renthungo learned Junior Govt Advocate. 2. From the office note dated 29.8.95, notice upon the respondent Nos.5 to 13 has been issued by registered post. Under the Civil Procedure Code, it is presumed to have been served. However, none enters appearance on behalf of the respondents. Mr. EY Renthungo has expressed his inability to file counter on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 as no instruction has been received in spite of repeated reminders. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case I propose to dispose of this petition on merit as the matter brooks no delay. 3. The case in hand illustrates a classic example as to how the valuable life and liberty of a citizen has put to an end by an act of barbarism. The deceased is stated to be aged about 24 years was detained under the National Security Act sometime in April 1994 and he was detained in Central Jail, Dimapur. The allegation is that, on 7.3.95 which was a visiting day, some of his friends went to visit him by obtaining a visiting slip after payment for Rs.5/- as is the practice. All the other visitors were allowed to meet the inmates of the jail, however, the visitors of the deceased were disallowed by the jail warden. This was resented by the deceased. 4. It is averred in para 10 of the writ petition that, at about 5 to 5.3 0 PM, the deceased was inside the cell and the respondent No. 10 came inside the cell by unlocking the door and called out the deceased on the pretext that he was wanted by Jail Superintendent. However, as soon as the deceased came out of the cell, respondents 6 to 13 headed by respondent No.5 started beating the deceased without any reason. The deceased cried for help to other jail inmates to save him, however, except shouting from the small window of their respective cells they could not rescue the deceased from beating by respondents 5 to 13. Thereafter, the deceased was fatally injured resulting to multiple injuries on his body and he was shifted to the Dimapur Civil Hospital in an unconscious condition. Thereafter, the deceased was declared dead by the Doctor in Civil Hospital, Dimapur at about 8.3 0AM on 7.3.95. 5. Thereafter, the deceased was fatally injured resulting to multiple injuries on his body and he was shifted to the Dimapur Civil Hospital in an unconscious condition. Thereafter, the deceased was declared dead by the Doctor in Civil Hospital, Dimapur at about 8.3 0AM on 7.3.95. 5. Post mortem of the deceased was conducted by the Doctor of the Civil Hospital, Dimapur and following injuries were found : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 6. The injuries sustained by the deceased cannot be disputed because the deceased was inside the jail under the custody of wardens respondent Nos. 5 to 13 and the injuries were sustained inside the jail and therefore, there is no dispute that the injuries sustained by the deceased was perpetrated by the respondent Nos.5 to 13. That the specific averments made in para 10 of the writ petition is not disputed by the respondents. Therefore, it is accepted as gospel truth that the injuries sustained by the deceased has been perpetrated by the respondent Nos.5 to 13 resulting his death. 7. Convicts prisoners and under trial prisoners also have right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 of the Constitution imposes a strict duty upon the State to ensure that the citizen in custody of police or any prison is not deprived of his right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. In the case in hand, there is no dispute that at the time of meeting his dead, the deceased was under the custody of the respondents particularly the respondent Nos.5 to 13 who are jail wardens. 8. Of late, a custodial death has become the rule of the day. It is heinous crime perpetrated by the custody of law. If custodians of the law themselves indulged in committing such crimes than no part of the society is safe and secured. If the jail wardens whose duties are to provide security and protection to the citizens indulged in such methods instead of providing security creating a sense of insecurity in the minds of the citizens then the citizens will have no confidence in the custodians of the law. Such act perpetrated by the custodian of law are more heinous than the game keeper becoming a poacher or a treasure guard becoming a robber. 9. Such act perpetrated by the custodian of law are more heinous than the game keeper becoming a poacher or a treasure guard becoming a robber. 9. By now it is well settled principle of law that if infringement of indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is established, compensation in exercise of our power under Article 226 of the Constitution is permissible. There is no dispute that the deceased died out of beating from the respondent Nos.5 to 13 inside the jail on 7.3.95. From the post mortem report as quoted above would clearly show that the deceased died out of injuries inflicted by the respondent Nos.5 to 13. If the above facts are established it is well substantiated that there has been flagrant infringement of indefeasible right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation the citizen has a right to get exemplary damages. 10. Now remains to be decided is the quantum of compensation. No amount of treasure on earth can be substituted for the dear and loving one. Any amount of compensation that may be awarded is only in the nature of exemplary damages and in palliative. The deceased was stated to be aged 24 years. If this is so, the petitioner has lost his son at the prime of his life. However, as already observed no amount of compensation can be adequate in terms of valuable and precious life. 11. It is averred in para 14 of the writ petition that the deceased was doing a timber business and was earning a handsome amount of money. Considering this facts and view of the afore stated reasons if an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. two lakhs) is awarded to the petitioner as exemplary damages for the lost of his son, it would meet the ends of justice. 12. The respondent Nos.5 to 13 are the servants of respondent Nos. l and 2. Accordingly, the respondent Nos. l and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. two lakhs as exemplary damages to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. It is open to the respondent Nos. l and 2 to indemnify the costs of compensation from the respondents 5 to 13. 13. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is allowed. 14. two lakhs as exemplary damages to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. It is open to the respondent Nos. l and 2 to indemnify the costs of compensation from the respondents 5 to 13. 13. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is allowed. 14. Before I part with the record, I shall constrain to observe that FR No.0024 of 1995 dated 8.3.95 under section 302/34IPC has been lodged against the respondent Nos.5 to 13. Investigation of such a case brooks no delay as such cases created considerable amount of public awareness. The delay in completing the investigation and submission of charge sheet in such case would loss the confidence of the public in the investigating agency. It is expected that investigating agency would pursue the matter vigorously and complete the investigation. If the charge sheet is not already filed, must be filed within two months from the date of receipt of this order. 15. Registry is directed to furnish a copy of this order to Superintendent of Police, Dimapur for necessary compliance and submit the report. 16. With the aforesaid observation and directions this petition is allowed.