Judgment S. T. KHARCHE, J. ( 1 ) INVOKING the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner filed criminal Writ Petition No. 111/96 claiming writ of Habeas Corpus for production of his son Sunil Shendre aged about 14 years which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06-12-1996. The said order reads as under : "the petitioner claimed a writ of habeas corpus for production of his son Sunil shendre, aged about 14 years. The allegations were that the boy was taken in custody by the Police Authorities in connection with some theft on 15-3-1996 and as such, they are liable to produce the boy. After notice, it is revealed that the boy was never taken in custody. He was called for interrogation and thereafter he was asked to go home. The boy is missing since then according to parties. To trace the boy, this Court on 21-8-1996 directed the respondent Authorities to give due publicity about missing of the boy. Shri. Naik, the learned 'a' panel counsel appearing for the respondents, made a statement that in compliance of the order, due publicity has been given. Further, superintendent of Police, Amravati filed an affidavit and made a statement that all possible efforts are being made to trace the boy. In view of this, the grievance of the petitioner does not survive. We, therefore, dispose of the petition. However, we further direct that the Authorities shall continue their venture to trace the boy vigorously. " ( 2 ) THE boy could not be traced and, therefore, the petitioner has filed the present criminal writ petition claiming compensation of Rs. Three lacs on the contentions that on 15-3-1996 one Shah Noorbi had lodged oral report with Shri. Tayade. Police Station officer, Police Station Mangrul Dastgir respondent no. 4 alleging therein that the son of the petitioner by name Sunil, aged about 14 years, had committed theft of Rs. Three thousand from her shop. According to the petitioner, his son Sunil was physically handicapped and was suffering from polio and the Civil Surgeon had issued a certificate dated 4-5-1991 to that effect. 4 alleging therein that the son of the petitioner by name Sunil, aged about 14 years, had committed theft of Rs. Three thousand from her shop. According to the petitioner, his son Sunil was physically handicapped and was suffering from polio and the Civil Surgeon had issued a certificate dated 4-5-1991 to that effect. It is contended that after receiving the oral report from Shah noorbi, on 15-3-1996 itself the police personnel arrived at the house of the petitioner and made enquiries regarding the whereabouts of Sunil who was not present at the home as he had gone to Arvi at the house of his uncle. The police personnel slapped the petitioner and directed him to produce his son at the police station and so saying they left. Thereafter the petitioner had gone to Arvi and brought back his son Sunil in the night of 15- 3-1996 and informed the respondent no. 4 about the arrival of Sunil. On 16-3-1996 the police personnel arrived at the house of venutai the grand mother of Sunil where he was allowed to stay by his father. The police personnel started mercilessly thrashing Sunil outside the house and thereafter the boy was taken away by the police personnel. The boy was subjected to physical torture at the police station. On 16-3-1996 at about 2-00 p. m. two police constables by name Mate and Gaikwad arrived at the house of the petitioner and informed him that he was called by respondent no. 4 and he should accompany them to the police station. The petitioner accordingly went to the police station where respondent no. 4 was present. The latter informed the petitioner that Shah Noorbi has lodged a complaint against his son Sunil in respect of theft and accordingly at about 7-00 a. m. Sunil was brought to the police station and he has absconded and is untraceable. Thereafter respondent no. 4 offered cold drink to the petitioner and told him that the Police Station officer would pay him Rs. 1,000/- and he should bring the boy to the police station. The petitioner suspected that there was something fishy and, therefore, asked the respondent no. 4 to take his report and register the first information report about missing of the boy who was physically handicapped and was unable to walk or run away from the police station. The respondent no. 1,000/- and he should bring the boy to the police station. The petitioner suspected that there was something fishy and, therefore, asked the respondent no. 4 to take his report and register the first information report about missing of the boy who was physically handicapped and was unable to walk or run away from the police station. The respondent no. 4 or the police personnel did not pay any heed to his request and on the contrary threatened him that he should not disclose anything to the people in the village. The petitioner then left the police station in a disturbed state of mind. He tried to trace out the boy but was unsuccessful and, therefore, on 28-3-1996 he made a written complaint to the District Superintendent of police, Camp at Amravati. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner filed criminal writ petition No. 1 11/96 which came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06-12-1996. Thereafter the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the National Human rights Commission, New Delhi, which was registered as case No. 88/18/97-98. The national Human Rights Commission held enquiry and recorded a finding on 26-8-1998 that without registering the offence at the police station the boy Sunil was called at the police station and there was a manipulation in the entries recorded in the station diary. ( 4 ) THIS Court had issued directions from time of time and even on 05-12-2002, this Court passed the following order : "till today, the State has not been able to trace out Sunil Baliram Shendre who was produced by his mother in the police station and since then he is missing. According to the version of the police officials to whom the said Sunil Shendre was surrendered, he has run away from the police custody. After the matter was disposed of by the High Court, it appears that the petitioner approached the National human Rights Commission. The National human Rights Commission has made an independent enquiry in the matter and in the proceedings dated 26-8-1998, has made certain observations pursuant to which this proceedings have been initiated. In our opinion, the matter requires to be investigated by an independent agency so as to assist Court in arriving at a proper conclusion. The National human Rights Commission has made an independent enquiry in the matter and in the proceedings dated 26-8-1998, has made certain observations pursuant to which this proceedings have been initiated. In our opinion, the matter requires to be investigated by an independent agency so as to assist Court in arriving at a proper conclusion. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, we direct the State to hand over the investigation to State C. I. D. and the same is to be done by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, and submits the report to this Court within a period of six weeks. After examining the report and hearing the counsel for the parties, we will take a decision as to what further steps are required to be taken in the matter. S. O. six weeks. Copy of the order be furnished to the learned A. P. P. for being communicated to the Principal Secretary, Home, for issuing necessary orders in accordance with the directions of this Court to the State C. I. D. " ( 5 ) THE respondent no. 2 contended that there was no manipulation at all in the entries recorded in the station diary. On interrogation Sunil admitted to have committed theft and he informed the police that he has lost all the money while he had slept at Arvi. He was called in the police station and was given an understanding that he should not indulge in the theft. On asking sunil informed that he was studying in VIIth standard and believing his words the P. S. O. thought that Sunil was a minor. However on enquiry from the school the date of birth of sunil was found to be 30-7-1980 and, therefore, his age was 15 years. 7 months and 16 days as on 16-3-1996. It is contended that the finding recorded by the National Human rights Commission is absolutely erroneous and the entry recorded in the station diary would clearly reveal that Sunil was allowed to leave the police station as no offence was registered against him and, therefore, none of the police officials are responsible for disappearance of Sunil. Though sincere effort have been made to trace out Sunil, they were unsuccessful. ( 6 ) MR. Sambre, learned counsel, for the petitioner contended that the station diary entry recorded at Sr. Though sincere effort have been made to trace out Sunil, they were unsuccessful. ( 6 ) MR. Sambre, learned counsel, for the petitioner contended that the station diary entry recorded at Sr. No. 19 at 12-35 on 16-3- 1996 is a manipulated entry and it is admitted position that Sunil was arrested without registering the offence against him and he was mercilessly beaten in the police station. He contended that the Entry No. 19 itself shows that Sunil was brought to the police station, but there appears to be manipulation in the said entry wherein a show has been made that the boy was allowed to go home after the interrogation was over. He contended that the findings of National Human Rights commission would clearly reveal that the respondents have violated the guidelines given by the Apex Court in the case of D. K. Basu vs. State of W. B. reported in (1997)1 SCC 416 . He contended that in absence of any plausible explanation from the respondents it will have to be presumed that the respondents are responsible for the death of Sunil while he was in the police custody and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of rs. Three lacs. In support of these submissions, he relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Shobha wd/o Anil londase Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2003 (4) Mh. LJ. 436 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1491] and also on the decision of Single bench of Delhi High Court in Smt. Geeta Vs. Lt. Governor and others reported in 1999 cri. LJ. 1099. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents contended that the findings of national Human Rights Commission are erroneous and by no stretch of imagination the respondents/police officials could be held responsible for the alleged custodial death especially when the boy Sunil is still missing and in spite of vigorous search could not be found. ( 8 ) WE have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the proceedings were started upon a complaint of the petitioner before the national Human Rights Commission which were concluded on 26-8-1998 wherein it has been mentioned as under : "pursuant to the Commission's directions, the Investigation Division sought and obtained a report from Supdt. It is not in dispute that the proceedings were started upon a complaint of the petitioner before the national Human Rights Commission which were concluded on 26-8-1998 wherein it has been mentioned as under : "pursuant to the Commission's directions, the Investigation Division sought and obtained a report from Supdt. of Police, amravati, Maharashtra and stated as follows: report brings out that on 16-3-96 (not 16-3-97) as mentioned in the case file, one shahanoorbi lodged an oral complaint with ps Mangrul, regarding theft of grocery items worth Rs. 3,000/- in which she suspected Sunil Baliram Shendre (aged 14 years ). She however, did not lodge any written complaint to PS. The suspected boy agreed to return stolen property in the presence of his mother. The police did not pursue with the charge on the assurances that he will not indulge in such an offence in future. According to the police, compromise was worked out primarily keeping in view of the tender age of the boy. An entry was made in the Station dairy on the same day i. e. 16-3-96. In the evening at about 1700 hrs. , the father of Sunil came to PS and he said that his son has run away from the home. Entry was made in the register. Police parties were deployed but he could not be located. His photograph was published in several newspapers but till date he is not traceable. Baliram Shendre, father of missing boy also filed a Habeas Corpus petition No. 111/ 96 dated 19-6-96, before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. Search parties were sent to various places like Bombay, nagpur and Pune where some of the boy's relatives are staying. The High Court discharged the Habeas Corpus petition on not finding any substance in the allegations. against the police. According to the police, Sunil Shendre is a spoiled boy, who had run away from his home few years back. He was caught by Bhusawal police and was kept in remand Home and then handed cover to his parents. "as the Commission did not find police version convincing, the Commission ordered a spot inquiry on 5-3-1998. against the police. According to the police, Sunil Shendre is a spoiled boy, who had run away from his home few years back. He was caught by Bhusawal police and was kept in remand Home and then handed cover to his parents. "as the Commission did not find police version convincing, the Commission ordered a spot inquiry on 5-3-1998. Inspector K. K. Arora and Shri. R. K. Sharma from the Commission's investigation Division conducted a spot - inquiry and submitted a report which stated : "enquiry reveals that the complainant hails from the backward community and is engaged as a casual labour. His 14 years old disabled son Sunil Shendre was hauled up by the police on the basis of an informal complaint made by Smt. Shanoor Bee, a neighbour, concerning a theft in her house. Police party led by PSI Tayade went to the house of Shendre and since the boy was not available, they had threatened them to produce him in the P. S. On 16-3-96, the complainant's wife produced Sunil before st Tayade and came to home. It is quite likely that the boy may have been beaten by the police. Later in the afternoon, the police party again came to the residence and asked for the whereabouts of the boy sunil as he was not traceable in the PS. (a) No formal report of FIR with regard to the theft was lodged by PSI. A. B. Tayade of PS Mangrul on 15-3-96, when the matter was reported to him, hence calling the boy sunil was blatantly an act of illegality. (b) The GD has been manipulated, as entry at serial No. 19 dated 16-3-96 written by the SHO shows that Sunil was found missing from the Police Station during questioning (c) Petitioner has expressed his grave fear and apprehension that his son, who was handicapped, was not in a position to escape from the Police Station and it is quite likely due to assault, he may have died in police custody and his body has been disposed of. (d) Missing report was lodged by PSI tayade on 25-3-96 after 10 days of delay for which he has no plausible explanation to offer. The police action to call Sunil Shendre without any complaint or registration of fir is a gross illegality and they are answerable for the boy's disappearance. (d) Missing report was lodged by PSI tayade on 25-3-96 after 10 days of delay for which he has no plausible explanation to offer. The police action to call Sunil Shendre without any complaint or registration of fir is a gross illegality and they are answerable for the boy's disappearance. What is surprising is that no action has been taken against any of the police officials even when it is being admitted that the boy was called to the PS for questioning in a theft matter. PSI Tayade and the other policemen cannot be absolved themselves for the disappearance. " ( 9 ) IN D. K. Basu's case - (1997)1 scc 416 , cited supra, the Apex Court has in para no. 35 issued the following guidelines to be followed in case of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures : "we, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures : (1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of arrestee must be recorded in a register. (2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. (3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or relative of the arrestee. (4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of thearrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest. (5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained. (6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regrading the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is. (7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The "inspection memo" must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee. (8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director. Health Services of the State or Union territory concerned. Director, Health services should prepare such a panel of all tehsils and districts as well. (9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his record. (10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation. (11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on conspicuous notice board. " ( 10 ) IN Shobha Vs. State of maharashtra - 2003 (4) Mh. LJ. 436 : [2003 all MR (Cri) 1491], cited supra, this Court awarded compensation of Rs. " ( 10 ) IN Shobha Vs. State of maharashtra - 2003 (4) Mh. LJ. 436 : [2003 all MR (Cri) 1491], cited supra, this Court awarded compensation of Rs. Three lacs to the legal heirs of the deceased victim and relied on the observations made in the case of D. K. Basu, cited supra. Those observations are as under: "as regards the torture and custodial violence, the Apex Court in D. K. Basu vs. State of W. B. Reported in (1997)1 scc 416 has clearly ruled thus : "torture" has not been defined in the constitution or in other penal laws. "torture" of a human being by another human being is essentially an instrument to impose the will of the "strong" over the "weak" by suffering. The word torture today has become synonymous with the darker side of human civilisation. "custodial torture" is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality. It is a calculated assault on human dignity and whenever human dignity is wounded, civilisation takes a step backward flag of humanity must on each such occasion by half-mast. In all custodial crimes what is of real concern is not only infliction of body pain but the mental agony which a person undergoes within the four walls of police station of lock-up. Whether it is physical assault or rape in police custody, the extent of trauma, a person experiences is beyond the purview of law. "custodial violence" and abuse of police power is not only peculiar to this country, but it is widespread. It has been the concern of international community because the problem is universal and the challenge is almost global. The Universal declaration of Human Rights in 1948, which marked the emergence of a worldwide trend of protection and guarantee of certain basic human rights, stipulates in Article 5 that: "no one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. " despite the pious declaration the crime continues unabated, though every civilised nation shows its concern and takes steps for its eradication. Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the rule of law The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution require to be zealously and scrupulously protected. We cannot wish away the problem. Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the rule of law The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution require to be zealously and scrupulously protected. We cannot wish away the problem. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. It the functionaries of the government become law-breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law upto himself thereby leading to anarchanism. No civilised nation can permit that to happen. Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a policeman arrests him ? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest? These questions touch the spinal cord of human rights' jurisprudence. The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic "no". The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials. detenus and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law. " (emphasis supplied) the very fact that the respondents have arrived at the conclusion about the involvement of the jail guard in death of anil and, therefore, has initiated criminal proceedings against him apparently discloses the cause of death of Anil being that he was subjected to custodial torture and that would also justify the claim of the petitioner for compensation in this petition. " ( 11 ) THE Single Bench of Delhi High court in Smt. Geeta Vs. Lt. Governor -1999 cri. LJ. 1099, cited supra held in para 7 as under: "in view of the above discussion I consider it to be an imminently fit case for grant of compensation to the petitioners. While granting compensation it must be kept in view that Sonu, a young man of 22 years of age, was picked up by the police even though there was no allegation of his involvement in any criminal activity. It is not the case of the respondents that when he was arrested he was having injuries on his person. While granting compensation it must be kept in view that Sonu, a young man of 22 years of age, was picked up by the police even though there was no allegation of his involvement in any criminal activity. It is not the case of the respondents that when he was arrested he was having injuries on his person. No explanation has been rendered for fifty-one-juries which was found on his person as a result of which he died in police custody. It must also be taken into consideration that despite several judgments of the Supreme Court and this court, the State has not been able to prevent custodial deaths. Torture is still preferred to scientific techniques for the purposes of eliciting information from accused and witnesses. " ( 12 ) ON careful analysis of the facts and circumstances brought on record, what we find is that it is not disputed that the boy Sunil was picked up from the house of his grand mother and was brought to the police station and though actually he wasarrested, no grounds of arrest were informed to him and instead doubtful entries have been made in the station diary to show that the boy had absconded from the police station. It would clearly reveal that Sunil was physically handicapped and could not have run away from the police station. It is relevant to note that though Shah Noorbi had lodged oral report with respondent no. 4, the same was not reduced into writing and no offence was registered against the boy Sunil. The station dairy entry at Sr. No. 19 recorded on 16-3-1996 would clearly show that Sunil was found missing from the police station during interrogation. Sunil was arrested without following the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble supreme Court in D. K. Basu' case and when a missing report has been lodged by PSI tayade on 25-3-1996 after ten days, it will have to be presumed that the respondents are responsible for causing disappearance of the boy and it is just possible that the boy must have been beaten by the police and that the boy must have died while he was in police custody and that his body has been disposed of. The circumstances of last seen coupled with the fact that the whereabouts of the body are not known to anybody, would show that the police personnel wanted to hush up the matter by registering a false missing report on 25-3-1996 after ten days of the incident. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents are liable to pay compensation. ( 13 ) IN the result, we do find that the award to Rs. two lacs as compensation would not be either exorbitant or unreasonable and, therefore, the petition succeeds and the State is directed to pay the compensation of Rs. two lacs to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today in default the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. However, the respondents are required to hold necessary inquiry to fix up the responsibility to contribute the said compensation and shall take necessary steps in accordance with the provisions of law to recover the same from those persons. Rule as made absolute accordingly with costs of Rs. Two thousand in favour of the petitioner. C. C. expedited. Petition allowed.