Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 578 (PAT)

Mosomat Parmila Devi v. State Of Bihar

2000-04-13

M.Y.EQBAL

body2000
Judgment 1. In this writ application the petitioner claims compensation on account of custodial death of her husband. 2. Petitioners case is that on 2nd July, 1998 a news was published in the daily news paper that two convicts died in the Central Jail, Ranchi. One was Mateshwar Thakur, the deceased husband of the petitioner and another was Gouri Singh after taking meal and also spirited wine. Late husband of the petitioner was aged about 30 years who have been convicted U/s 302/34 I.P.C in Sessions Trial No. 193/92 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla. Against the aforementioned judgment of conviction and sentence, deceased husband of the petitioner preferred appeal before this Court being Criminal Appeal No. 26/95R and the same is said to be pending. Petitioners case is that her husband died leaving behind the petitioner, four minor sons, one married daughter. It is stated that on 2nd July, 1998 it was published in the newspaper that the deceased husband of the petitioner died in Ranchi Central Jail after taking spirited wine but the Jail Authority stated that they died due to food poisoning. Petitioners case is that the death certificate granted by the Doctor and the postmortem report clearly shows that the deceased died in e jail custody due to negligence of the concerned respondent. Petitioner states that she has no means of her survival and also not in position to maintain and manage even food for her minor children. she therefore claims a sum of Rs. 2,50,0OO/- by way of compensation because of custodial death of her husband. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case by respondent nos. 2 and 3 in which it was stated inter alia that some friends visited the deceased husband of petitioner who delivered some food 1 fruits to him. It is stated that after isumption of the said food and fruits deceased husband of the petitioner fell ill on 2nd July, 1998 in the early hour of the morning. He was taken to jail hospital expecting it to be gastro entrasis. Later he was shifted to R.M.C.H. Ranchi on the same day where he was declared dead. Respondents case is that the deceased husband of the petitioner died due to food poisoning which was confirmed by the Forensic Science Laboratory for which his viscera has been preserved. 4. I have heard Mr. Later he was shifted to R.M.C.H. Ranchi on the same day where he was declared dead. Respondents case is that the deceased husband of the petitioner died due to food poisoning which was confirmed by the Forensic Science Laboratory for which his viscera has been preserved. 4. I have heard Mr. B. P. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned Junior Counsel to Government Advocate. 5. From perusal of the newspaper cutting (Annexure-1) it was reported that two convicts have died due to consumption of spirited wine. The certificate issued by Department of Forensic Medicine. R.M.C.H. Ranchi (Annexure-2) opines that that death was due to food poisoning. A copy of the postmortem report has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the counter-affidavit. In the postmortem report it was reported that death was caused due to food poisoning but subject to confirmation by the Forensic Science Laboratory. In the inquest report (Annexure-2) the probable cause of death was shown ailment/disease. 6. Be that as it may, it has been admitted in the counter affidavit that some friends visited the deceased husband of the petitioner who delivered some food and fruits to him and after consumption of said food and fruits deceased husband of the petitioner fell ill and died. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the cause of death of husband of the petitioner was due to consumption of food and fruits which was brought from outside the jail, no explanation has been given in the counter- affidavit as to why the Jail Authority have allowed the persons to supply food and fruits to the deceased. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Inspector General of Prison and the Superintendent of Central Jail, Ranchi but the defence taken by them in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit that the cause of death was due to consumption of food and fruits has not been properly affidavited. According to the said respondents these facts are true to their information derived from their record but no such record has been brought on record to substantiate their stand. 7. The law with regard to custodial death has been time and again considered by the Apex Court in various decisions. Recently this Bench has also considered similar question in the case of "Mostt. Ahulash Devi vs. Union of India & ors." ( 2000(1) PLJR 672 ). 7. The law with regard to custodial death has been time and again considered by the Apex Court in various decisions. Recently this Bench has also considered similar question in the case of "Mostt. Ahulash Devi vs. Union of India & ors." ( 2000(1) PLJR 672 ). After considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions this court also held that even if deceased was criminal or convict, it is mandatory duty and responsibility of the Police Personnel to save his life after he is taken into custody. The stand taken by the respondents cannot be believed for the simple reason that not only the deceased but also another convict died on the same day and several other convicts became serious and were sent to R.M.C.H. Ranchi for treatment. This very fact shows that there is every reason to believe that the deceased died due to consumption of spirited wine. If that is so, then I have no option but to hold that it is because of the negligence of the Jail Authorities that the spirited wine was brought inside the jail and the same was consumed by many convicts. 8. Since the death of the husband of the petitioner was caused due to negligence of the Jail Authorities, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation, 9, Having regard to the facts and cumstances of the case, this writ application is allowed and it is held that petitioner is entitled to get compensation which is assessed at Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh). The said amount must be paid by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.