ORDER There is no dispute as regards two facts, i.e. Sri Shiv Kant Kumar @ Dabloo, being the son of the petitioner, was taken into custody by the Police Department of the State in course of investigation and that the dead body of the son or the petitioner came out from the custody of the Police Department of the State. Before the dead over to the petitioner, post mortem thereof had been carried out at Patna Medical College Hospital. The post mortem report reported that the cause of the death will be indicated after the Forensic report is submitted. The post mortem report depicts marks of injuries, which if inflicted upon a living soul, may cause his death. Such death will be homicidal in nature. These injuries may be those inflicted by the public as alleged in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents nos. 3 and 4 and supported by the State at the instance of the Investigating Officer they may also be marks of brutal torture which may have been inflicted upon the son of the petitioner while he was alive. If those injuries had already been inflicted upon the son of the petitioner, in order to save his life, it was incumbent upon the officers arresting the son of the petitioner to give him appropriate medical assistance. In the instant case for such purpose medical assistance was given at Danapur Hospital. Whatever Danapur Hospital was required to do was done, whereupon the son of the petitioner was given in custody of the Police Officers. He was kept in Police custody in the night and then produced before the Magistrate. The son of the petitioner was then forwarded by the Magistrate to jail custody. The son of the petitioner remained in jail custody for few more days and thereupon, as aforesaid, his dead body was released to the petitioner. The Medical Officer, who conducted the post mortem, felt that it would be appropriate to pronounce the cause of death on receipt of the forensic report. He, therefore, as reported in the post mortem report, took out vital parts of the body of the son of the petitioner, kept them in sealed jar and sealed glass via and made available the same to the Investigating Officer for onward transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory of the State. This happened on 9th June, 1998. He, therefore, as reported in the post mortem report, took out vital parts of the body of the son of the petitioner, kept them in sealed jar and sealed glass via and made available the same to the Investigating Officer for onward transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory of the State. This happened on 9th June, 1998. The sealed jar and the glass vial reached the Forensic Science Laboratory on 22nd December By that time whatever was kept in the sealed jar as well as in the sealed glass vial became useless for testing and the Forensic Science Laboratory has submitted a report to that effect. 2. The Police Department of the State has filed an affidavit in terms of the court's order dated 3rd March, 2006 and therein has stated that the Investigating Officer deliberately forwarded the sealed jar and the sealed glass vial to the Forensic Science Laboratory one and half years later for no just reason and, accordingly, appropriate disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the Investigating Officer. 3. There is, therefore, an attempt on the part of the State and its officers, including the respondents nos. 3 and 4, to dispute the cause of death of the son of the petitioner. The cause of death may be thrashing by the public as has been alleged by the said respondents. The cause of death may be inhuman torture inflicted in jail custody or while the son of the petitioner was in custody of the Police. Despite such an important and unusual post mortem report, the Investigating Officer, a person belonging to the Police Department, took steps in such a manner so that the cause of death is never known. If the death had occurred by reason of public thrashing, the Forensic report would not have suggested something contrary and, accordingly, the Investigating Officer had nothing to hide. The deliberate attempt on the part of the Investigating Officer to make evidence of the cause of death, as was available, beyond the reach of anyone suggests that he was more concerned to hide something. The Superior Officers of the Police Department silently stood by the Investigating Officer till such time the evidence got completely lost. The manner in which the matter has proceeded suggests that the supervisory officers of the Investigating Officer too did not attempt to reveal the truth. The Superior Officers of the Police Department silently stood by the Investigating Officer till such time the evidence got completely lost. The manner in which the matter has proceeded suggests that the supervisory officers of the Investigating Officer too did not attempt to reveal the truth. In such circumstances, the conclusion would be that the death, which was homicidal in nature, occurred while the son of the petitioner was in custody and the reason therefor is either utter callousness on the part of the Officers of the Police Department in reaching appropriate medical assistance to the son of the petitioner while he was in custody, or inflicting of murderous injuries while he was in custody. 4. Who has caused the death will be independently determined when the matter will go before the appropriate criminal court, evidence will be led and the court will pronounce its verdict. In the meantime, three things having been concluded, i.e., custody of the son of the petitioner was taken when he was alive by the Police Department of the State, his dead body was delivered from the custody of the Police Department of the State and such death being homicidal in nature, the conclusion would be that the State did not protect the right to life of the son of the petitioner and, accordingly, has exposed itself to damages which by way of nominal damages is assessed at rupees five lacs with a direction upon the State to pay the same to the petitioner within three months from today. The State is directed to recover the sum of rupees five lacs to be paid to the petitioner from that or those persons for whose fault the death occurred. 5. This Writ petition is, thus, disposed of.