Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 107 (PAT)

Sunita Devi v. State Of Bihar

2000-01-20

SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2000
Judgment 1. The present application under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India has been filed directing the respondents-authorities to pay the petitioner a suitable amount of compensation for causing death of her husband, namely, Shaligram Paswan, who died by a gun shot injury, which is said to have been inflicted by named accused-persons of Sabour P.S. Case No. 252/96, who were deputed to maintain law and order on the eye of Kali Puja and Chhath. 2. The short fact of the present case is that on 17.11.1996 while the deceased was coming from the market after selling fruits, he was caught hold by Jawans of the Home Guards, who were on the official duty and snatched Rs. 300/- as well as a wrist-watch. They also took the husband of the petitioner in their custody. On protest by the brother of the deceased, it was said that the allegation of theft is on him and he would be released only after the office-in-charge come to the Police Station but after some time when the brother of the deceased returned to the Police Station, he came to know that his brother has already been killed by Bahadur Yadav, a Jawan of the Homeguard, who fired from his rifle inflicting gun-shot injury on the neck of the husband of the deceased. 3. From perusal of the post-mortem report, as contained in Annexure-2, it transpires that the body of Shaligram Paswan was sent for post-mortem examination, which was conducted on 18.11.1996 and the Doctor found the gunshot injury on the person of the deceased and opined that the aforesaid injury was the cause of his death and was ante-mortem. 4. A notice was issued to the respondents and a counter-affidavit has already been filed by Respondent No. 8, the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur as well as Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 separately. 5. From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, it transpires that as the Home-Guard Department was competent only to grant compensation to the officials of the Home-Guard Organisation, as such, they are not in a position to grant compensation but it has been accepted in the said counter-affidavit that there was an occurrence in which the husband of the petitioner was killed and for which an FIR has already been instituted. 6. 6. From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 8, it appears that on occurrence has taken place on 17.11.1996 and the case has already been registered against one Bahadur Yadav for commission of murder of Shaligram Paswan. 7. In the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 8, it has been stated that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the petitioner under Rashtriya Samajik Sahayata Karyakram (Pariwarik Lav Yojana) by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur and as such, it has been stated by the learned counsel appearing for the State that as the husband of the petitioner was not required in any other criminal case and as a custodial death has occurred, an FIR has already been lodged to bring the guilty to book and as a compensation has already been paid to the widow of the deceased, i.e., the writ petitioner, no further order is required to be passed by this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has asserted that from both the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of Respondent No. 8 and other respondents, the custodial death of the husband of the petitioner has not been controverted. 9. He has further contended that the petitioners husband was not required in any other criminal case and nothing has been brought on record to show that he was required in any other case. It has further been argued that the petitioners husband being a man of only 25 years and having three minor sons and a daughter and the petitioner being a widow, is required to be granted compensation by the State and a sum of Rs.10,000/-, which has been paid as ex gratia by the District Magistrate, was at the time of the death for cremation of the petitioners husband and the same amount cannot be said to be a compensation for the loss suffered by her as the amount of compensation cannot restore the life of her husband, which has been taken away without any rhyme and reason. 10. 10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Patna High Court Council of Legal Aid & Advice Committee v. State, 1997(2) BLJ-216 in which in a case of death in police custody which was not natural death but an unnatural one and as the deceased has been deprived of his life in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, their Lordships have directed the authorities of the State to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation to the heirs of the deceased and directed the Superintendent of Police to lodge an FIR and to get the investigation done in respect of the episode. - 11. Admittedly, in the present case, as per the affidavit of Respondent No. 8 itself, the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the case lodged for the occurrence resulting in the death of the husband of the petitioner and the culprit being in custody the only point remains to be decided as to whether a direction has to be issued for payment of compensation to the quantum of the same. 12. A further reliance, in this regard, has been made on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SAHELI a Womens Resources Centre through Ms. Nalini Bhanot and others v. The Commissioner of Police Delhi and others, AIR 1990 SC 513 :1990 East Cr C 393 (SC). In the aforesaid case, it was held that the State was responsible for the tortious acts of its employees and as such, the Delhi Administration was liable to pay compensation to Smt. Kamlesh Kumari for the death of her son due to beating by S.H.O. of Anand Parbat Police Station, Sri Lal Singh. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court directed the Delhi Administration to pay compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the mother of the deceased within a period of four weeks. It further directed that the Delhi Administration if it so likes, could take, appropriate steps for the recovery of the aforesaid amount paid as compensation from the officers, who were found responsible for the aforesaid act, if they are so advised. 13. 75,000/- to the mother of the deceased within a period of four weeks. It further directed that the Delhi Administration if it so likes, could take, appropriate steps for the recovery of the aforesaid amount paid as compensation from the officers, who were found responsible for the aforesaid act, if they are so advised. 13. In the facts of the present case, and in view of the aforesaid judgment and taking into consideration the young age of 25 years at which the petitioners husband is said to be killed and the fact that the young widow is left to look after four minor children, this Court is of the view that a further amount of Rs.1 lakh twenty five thousand (Rs. 1,25,000/-) only be paid to the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 State of Bihar, is directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner (widow of the deceased) within a period of six weeks from today. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar is directed to see that this order is carried out in its letter and spirit within the period specified above. 14. In the result, the present writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. 15. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned Government Advocate for its communication to the appropriate authorities for due compliance. Writ petition allowed.