Judgment D.P.Wadhwa and S.J.Mukhopadiiaya JJ. 1. The matter relates to death in police custody. The petitioner, Patna High Court Council of Legal Aid & Advice Committee filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: (a) To pay compensation to the family of Jitendra Kumar Singh on account of his custodial death. (b) To call upon respondent No. 2,1.G. Prisons to produce before this Hon ble court, all such materials/documents, e.g., post-mortem report, date of release of body; enquiry reports of enquiry conducted by the prison or any other authority. (c) To direct the S.P., Bhagalpur to reveal and state the stage of enquiry/ investigation with respect to the criminal case. (d) To record the statements of Mahesh Prasad, Raj Kumar Yadav and Rajendra Sharmaall persons imprisoned along with Jitendra Singh at Bhagalpur Camp Jail. (e) To direct the Jail Superintendent of Camp (Special) Jail to explain the circumstances relating to the death of Jitendra Singh. (f) To direct Dr. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal and Dr. Bijay Kumar Mandal posted at Bhagalpur Camp Jail to file separate affidavits regarding their findings with respect to the treatment and death of Jitendra Singh in Bhagalpur Camp Jail, Bhagalpur. 2. According to the petitioner, in pursuance of a direction of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5554 of 1994 the members of the petitioner visited several jails in Bihar. On 18.6.1996, Mrs. Sheema Ali Khan, Advocate, a member of the petitioner, Patna High Court Council of Legal Aid and Advice Committee along with some other members like Mrs. Sangeeta Deokuliar, Mr. Rashid Izhar and Mr. Prem Shankar visited the Bhagalpur Camp Jail. Some prisoners, including one Jitendra Kumar Singh along with Mahesh Prasad, Raj Kumar Yadav and Rajendra Sharma gave representation to them with allegation that they were forced to work outside and were made to wear fetters on their feet with further complaint that they may be shot on any excuse. The representation has been enclosed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 3. Subsequently, the members of the petitioner, Legal Aid Committee came to know from a news report published in a local daily on 24.8.1996 that said complainant, Jitendra Kumar Singh died in custody. The representation has been enclosed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 3. Subsequently, the members of the petitioner, Legal Aid Committee came to know from a news report published in a local daily on 24.8.1996 that said complainant, Jitendra Kumar Singh died in custody. Further, it was revealed from the newspaper reporting that the post-mortem report of Jitendra Kumar Singh was not supplied to the family members and there was sign of surgical wound on the head of Jitendra Kumar Singh when the body was handed over to the family. However, the family members were intimated that Jitendra Singh died of cardiac arrest. A criminal complaint case has been lodged in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur. The petitioner has alleged that the death of Jitendra Singh in custody was highly suspicious and the jail authorities had not acted in bona fide manner. 4. On notice, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents. In the main counter affidavit the respondents while denying the allegation, stated that the apprehension expressed by members of the petitioner, Legal Aid Committee was wholly baseless and imaginary. According to the respondents, Jitendra Kumar Singh had participated in Gayatri Havan in between 25.6.1996 and 7.7.1996 and also participated in yoga classes on 9.7.1996. After having his breakfast he was taken outside the jail gate for working in the garden and having returned to the ward took his lunch. While he was playing goti along with one Vishwanath Pandey over the platform at about 2 p.m. he suddenly fell down and died. Then Jitendra Kumar Singh was removed to the jail hospital, Ward No. 17 and was examined by two doctors, namely, Dr. Vijay Kumar Mandal and Dr. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, who declared him dead. On 30.1.1997 the counsel for the respondents relied on the counter affidavit and the post-mortem report annexed thereto submitted that the death occurred on account of heart attack. This court on 30.1.1997 recorded the following order: The post-mortem report filed with the affidavit of the State is too perfunctory in nature, to come to any finding as to the cause of death. Mr. Sinha submits that the death had occurred on account of heart attack. Post-mortem report does not say so, rather it says that the opinion relating to cause of death has been reserved, pending pathological examination of viscera. Mr. Sinha submits that the death had occurred on account of heart attack. Post-mortem report does not say so, rather it says that the opinion relating to cause of death has been reserved, pending pathological examination of viscera. We do not know how the report depends on examination of viscera. In any case, a complete post-mortem report is not on record showing the cause of death. The counsel for the State is directed to file on affidavit the complete post-mortem report before the next date of hearing. As prayed for by the counsel for the State, let the matter be listed again, under the same heading, on 20.2.1997. A copy of this order may be given to the counsel for both the parties. 5. After the said order a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents enclosing therein the pathological report and final opinion about the cause of death of the deceased, Jitendra Kumar Singh which is the final postmortem report. In the final post-mortem report it has been reported that there was 72" x 72" injury over the head and cause of death has been shown to be shock due to concussion, as a result of injury over the head as mentioned in the post-mortem report. 6. The counsel for the petitioner rightly pointed out from the counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit and the enclosures attached thereto the infirmities in the report submitted by the jail doctors, inquest report and the post-mortem report. The jail doctors nowhere have stated that they found head injury and gave their opinion that the deceased died because of heart attack. Such opinion was given without any basis. In the inquest report it has been categorically mentioned that there is no external injury and reason for death has been shown to be heart attack. It has been specifically mentioned koi bahari chinha nahi sambhawatah hriday gati rukane se." 7. On the other hand, in the postmortem report an external injury has been shown and after viscera report the cause of death has been shown to be shock due to concussion, as a result of such external injury over the head. 8. It has been specifically mentioned koi bahari chinha nahi sambhawatah hriday gati rukane se." 7. On the other hand, in the postmortem report an external injury has been shown and after viscera report the cause of death has been shown to be shock due to concussion, as a result of such external injury over the head. 8. The counsel for the State was not in a position to justify as to how the external injury over the head was lost sight of by the two jail doctors and the Magistrate (Deputy Collector) who had prepared the inquest report, when it was not only found without any test during the post-mortem and after test was shown to be the cause of death. The counsel for the State also accepted that the death in custody itself was not a natural death but was unnatural one. The apprehension of the deceased that harm may come to him on his giving report to the members of the team of the petitioner visiting the jail has come to be true. Jitendra Kumar Singh died an unnatural death in the jail and attempt was made to give it a cover of natural death in a most crude manner. This pathetic, nay criminal act of the jail authorities must be condemned in no uncertain terms. Jitendra Kumar Singh has been deprived of his life in breach of Article 21 of the Constitution. No amount of compensation can bring his life back. 9. On the facts and circumstances as stated above, we direct the authorities to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 as compensation to the heirs of deceased, Jitendra Kumar Singh, immediately which in any case shall be paid within a period of two months. That shall, however, be without prejudice to their any other right or claim for higher compensation on account of the death of Jitendra Kumar Singh. We further direct the S.P., Bhagalpur, to have F.I.R. lodged and to get the investigation done expeditiously under his direct supervision in respect of the whole episode. A copy of the F.I.R. so registered shall be sent to the Secretary, Patna High Court Council of Legal Aid and Advice Committee and she shall also be informed of the result of the investigation. Let a copy of this order be sent to the S.P., Bhagalpur. 10. A copy of the F.I.R. so registered shall be sent to the Secretary, Patna High Court Council of Legal Aid and Advice Committee and she shall also be informed of the result of the investigation. Let a copy of this order be sent to the S.P., Bhagalpur. 10. We record our appreciation of the step taken by Patna High Court Council of Legal Aid and Advice Committee in filing this writ application and in bringing to the notice of this Court the crime committed in the precincts of a jail. We also record our appreciation of the newspaper report (Hindi Hindustan) in highlighting the incident. Law will now take its own course. This writ application is allowed with costs amounting to Rs. 2,500.00 which shall be payable by the respondents to the Patna High Court Council of Legal Aid and Advice Committee within four weeks from today.