Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 375 (PNJ)

Gurmeet Kaur v. State of Haryana

2001-03-21

V.M.JAIN

body2001
JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for making inquiry to some independent agency or the District and Sessions Judge, with regard to the incident of custodial death of Amrik Singh, husband of the petitioner, with a further prayer for allowing adequate compensation to the family of the deceased (sic) owing only 4 acres of land and he was looking after his wife and children. It was alleged that on 11.11.1997, at about 5.00 p.m., Amrik Singh had gone to bus stop for some work and there a policy party of PS Fatehabad come and on seeing them three unknown persons ran towards the fields and the husband of the petitioner, who was near the spot, was approached by the police on suspicion that he was one of those persons who had run away. It was alleged that later on it came to light that those persons who ran away were trading in illicit liquor. It was alleged that the husband of the petitioner was taken to PS Fatehabad, in case hearing FIR 714 dated 11.11.1997 under Sections 61/1/14 of the Punjab Excise Act, in PS Sadar, Fatehabad. It was alleged that as per the allegations in the FIR Amrik Singh, husband of the petitioner, was found in drunken condition and when the police party arrested him, he fell down on the ground as unconscious because of liquor. It was alleged that when the petitioner and her father-in-law came to know that Amrik Singh had been taken into custody by the police, father of Amrik Singh went to the Police Station alongwith others and there he came to know that Amrik Singh had been taken to hospital in unconscious condition due to excessive liquor. It was alleged that when they went to Civil Hospital, they came to know that Amrik Singh had expired. It was alleged that initially they were not allowed to go near the dead body and after obtaining thumb impressions on the blank papers they were allowed to go near the dead body. It was alleged that on the next day the dead body was handed over to them after post mortem examination. It was alleged that Amrik Singh had died because of torture by the police while he was in policy custody. It was alleged that on the next day the dead body was handed over to them after post mortem examination. It was alleged that Amrik Singh had died because of torture by the police while he was in policy custody. It was alleged that various representations were sent to various authorities but of no avail. It was alleged that it was a case of custodial death. It was accordingly prayed that an inquiry be got conducted by some independent agency or by the District and Sessions Judge, in respect of custodial death of Amrik Singh, deceased and adequate compensation be paid to the family of the deceased. 2. The petition was contested by the respondents and affidavits was filed by Shri Manoj Yadav, IPS, SP Fatehabad and the various allegations made by the petitioner in the petition were denied and it was alleged that the husband of the petitioner had died due to excessive drinking. It was denied that he was caused any inquiry while in custody or otherwise. Reply was also filed by Inspector Balbir Singh, SHO, as also by respondents 4 and 5, to the same effect. 3. Vide order dated 18.9.1998, passed by this court, it was directed that an inquiry into the incident be entrusted to the District nd Sessions Judge, Hisar who may either himself or through some Additional District and Sessions Judge get the enquiry conducted based on the evidence led during the course of inquiry by both the sides, "to ascertain the fact as to whether the deceased, husband of the petitioner namely, Amrik Singh suffered injuries as a result of the alleged physical torture and beating at the police station or the died due to some other causes which are being mentioned in defence in the written statement of the respondents". It was further directed that the Enquiry Officer shall permit the petitioner and the respondents to lead such evidence as they desire to lead in the enquiry. It was further directed that the case be listed for hearing after the receipt of the inquiry report. 4. Report from the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hisar has been received. Copies of the said report were supplied to the counsel for the parties. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 6. 4. Report from the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hisar has been received. Copies of the said report were supplied to the counsel for the parties. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 6. In the inquiry report, it has been reported by the District and Sessions Judge that Amrik Singh, deceased, had not suffered any injury as a result of physical torture and beating at the police station. It was further reported that he died due to excessive consumption of liquor/intoxicants. This report was submitted by the District and Sessions Judge, after recording evidence, oral and documentary, led by both sides. 7. In view of the report submitted by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, in my opinion, it could not be said that Amrik Singh, deceased had suffered any physical torture or beating at the hands of the police. That being so, it could not be said that it was a case of custodial death, as claimed by the petitioner. On the other hand, the deceased had died due to excessive drinking, for which no police official could be blamed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that nothing has come on the record to show that timely medical aid was given to Amrik Singh and that being so, the police was negligent in providing medical aid to Amrik Singh, deceased. 9. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is no doubt true that in para 19 of the petition filed by the petitioner, it had been alleged that even if it was taken that the deceased was under the influence of liquor, yet excessive liquor consumption cannot lead to sudden death and under these circumstances, the onus is upon the police to prove that the deceased was provided with timely medical care. However, nothing has come on the record to show that in fact the deceased was not given timely medical aid and under these circumstances, in my opinion the police could not be blamed for the same. However, nothing has come on the record to show that in fact the deceased was not given timely medical aid and under these circumstances, in my opinion the police could not be blamed for the same. Even otherwise, a perusal of inquiry report, copy Annexure R-2/2, which was conducted by SDM, Fatehabad, under the orders of District Magistrate, Fatehabad, would show that at the time when Amrik Singh was apprehended by the police, he was in heavily drunken condition and when the police found that the condition of Amrik Singh had deteriorated, they took him to Civil Hospital in government jeep and he was got admitted in the hospital, where died subsequently. Furthermore, during the course of inquiry conducted by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hissar, statement of RW-3, Dr. Rajinder Singh was also recorded. He has examined Amrik Singh, deceased, when he was alive. He found him unconscious and gave him treatment but the condition of the patient was deteriorating and he died at 8.30 p.m. Thus, it could not be said that Amrik Singh, deceased was not given timely medical aid or that he had died on that account. In view of the detailed discussion above, in my opinion, it would be clear that Amrik Singh, deceased, had died due to excessive drinking and not because of any torture etc. at the hands of police. That being so, it cannot be termed as custodial death. 10. Once it is found that it was not a case of custodial death, the question of payment of compensation to the family of the deceased would not arise. 11. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.