JUDGMENT B.P. DAS, J. — The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming compensation for the unnatural death of his son, Deepak Kumar Swain while in custody in Choudwar Circle Jail. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his son Deepak Kumar Swain was arrested and remanded to judicial custody by the J.M.F.C., Salipur, as he was implicated in a criminal case being G.R. Case No.97/2003 for commission of offences under Sections 452/294/427/307, IPC. When the said Deepak Kumar Swain was in custody as an U.T.P., he died in S.C.B. Medical College & Hospi¬tal, Cuttack where he was taken for treatment. Thereafter, an F.I.R. was lodged by the brother of the deceased before the I.I.C., Choudwar Police Station on the allegation that they found the body of Deepak Kumar Swain being kept in S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital and there were some injuries on his body and face. The further allegation was that his brother did not die a natural death but was killed by some persons. The said F.I.R. was filed by the brother of the deceased after cremating the dead body. Initially U.D. Case No.6/11.3.2003 was registered, which was later converted to G.R. Case No.97/2003 and was registered under Section 302, IPC, which ultimately ended in Final Form and the cause of death, as indicated in the Final Form, was due to over dose of Benzodiazepine, i.e., a sedative group of drugs and due to respiratory failure. The petitioner in the circumstances claims compensation of an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs. 3. The Superintendent, Circle Jail, Choudwar, has filed an affidavit, in paragraph-4 of which it has been averred that on 10.3.2003 morning the deceased was brought to Dr. L.S. Mohapatra, Jail Doctor, by the Duty Warder, convict Night-Watchman and some room mates for treatment of lacerated scalp injury situated on the left temporal and parietal area with mild rise of temperature and basal crepitation on left lungs. As per the opinion of the Jail Doctor, the deceased was presented before him with violent action, irrelevant talk and mild visual hallucination. As per the query made by the doctor, the injury caused on the head was due to fall on the ground under violent stage. Apart from the same, the deceased confessed before the doctor that he was addicted to Nitroson-10 (Benzodiazepine group of drug), Cannabis, Alcohol and Brown Sugar before he was forwarded to Jail. As per the query made by the doctor, the injury caused on the head was due to fall on the ground under violent stage. Apart from the same, the deceased confessed before the doctor that he was addicted to Nitroson-10 (Benzodiazepine group of drug), Cannabis, Alcohol and Brown Sugar before he was forwarded to Jail. The injury sustained on the head of the deceased was stitched by the Jail doctor and all the ancillary treatment was given to the patient. As per the post-mortem report, there are all together nine injuries, out of which injury Nos.1, 4, 5, 6 & 9 are as follows :- “1. Stitched lacerated wound of 3 cm long with one Nylon Sutar present antero-posteriorily over the left fronto temporal 9 cm. above the left eye brow and left ear had been caused due to fall on the ground, which has been noted in the case sheet. 4. Multiple small abraded contusion of varying size and shape in an area of 7 X 5 cm placed on lateral aspect of elbow joint. 5. Two small abraded contusion of irregular shape present over the dorsum of right in an area of 4 X 2 Cm. 6. Multiple small abraded contusion of varying size and shape over an area of 7 X 6 Cm. placed in postero-lateral aspect of right elbow joint. 9. Abraded contusion two in number placed over front of right upper leg 3 Cm. below lower border of paltela 1 X 1 Cm. each.” The Superintendent, Circle Jail, Choudwar, was directed to explain the external injuries, as the aforesaid relevant injuries did not disclose anything regarding the cause of the aforesaid injuries. This Court by order dated 5.8.2009 observed that the affidavit filed by Sri Dharanidhar Das, the Jail Superintendent, was not in terms of the order dated 17.7.2009, for which it was rejected. No affidavit is forthcoming from the Secretary to Government, Home Department. 4. In the order dated 17.7.2009 the Secretary to Government, Home Department was directed to file an affidavit. Thereafter, the counter affidavit sworn to by one Sanatan Hem¬bram, Under Secretary to Government, Home Department, was filed. Paragraphs-4 & 5 of the said counter affidavit are extracted hereunder :- “4. No affidavit is forthcoming from the Secretary to Government, Home Department. 4. In the order dated 17.7.2009 the Secretary to Government, Home Department was directed to file an affidavit. Thereafter, the counter affidavit sworn to by one Sanatan Hem¬bram, Under Secretary to Government, Home Department, was filed. Paragraphs-4 & 5 of the said counter affidavit are extracted hereunder :- “4. That in reply to the averments made in para-1 of the writ application, the deponent respectfully submits that the information collected from the records of Circle Jail, Cuttack at Choudwar, it is found that the deceased was brought to the Jail Medical Officer, Choudwar for treatment in the morning of 10.3.2003 with a superficial injury on the scalp alleged to have been sustained due to fall in the night. The said injury was stitched by the Jail Medical Officer and the deceased was admit¬ted for treatment as an indoor patient in the Jail Hospital. On 11.3.2003 as his condition deteriorated, the Jail Medical Officer referred him for specialized treatment to S.C.B. Medical Col¬lege and Hospital, Cuttack and the deceased UTP was shifted thereby an ambulance. He was declared found dead on arrival at the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital. 5. That being an UTP, a Post Mortem was conducted and the doctor conducting post mortem found some injuries both post mortem as well as ante-mortem on the body which he has noted in Annexure-3. In the opinion of the doctor conducting post mortem injuries No.1, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 were ante-mortem and could have been caused by hard, blunt and rough contact and were not fatal either individually or combinedly. Injury No.1 was stitched lacerated wound which deceased had sustained due to fall in the night of 9/10.03.2003 inside his cell as noted by the Jail Medi¬cal Officer which he had stitched. The other external injuries noted in the post mortem report were minor abrasions and contu¬sions which could have been caused during shifting of the patient from Choudwar to Cuttack in the ambulance as per opinion of the Jail Medical Officer.” The said affidavit further indicated that the deceased Under Trial Prisoner had previous history of drug abuse and he had been diagnosed by the Jail Medical Officer as suffering from encepha¬litis (inflammation of the brain) exhibiting violent behaviour, talking incoherently and with mild hallucination. It is further indicated that the viscera report as well as final opinion of the doctor relating to the cause of death not having been annexed to the writ petition, the Home Department is unable to give any comment on the allegation made in the petition to the effect that Benzodiazepine group of drugs had crept into the Circle Jail, Choudwar and consumed by the deceased. 5. Another counter affidavit was also filed by Sri Dhara¬nidhar Das, Senior Superintendent of Circle Jail, Cuttack at Choudwar, reiterating the same facts in paragraph-6 that the lacerated injury was due to fall in the night and multiple small abraded contusions of varying size and shape placed at the later¬al elbow joint, right hand area and in postero-lateral aspect of right elbow joint and posterior aspect of let shoulder and abrad¬ed contusions placed front of right upper leg and below lower border of patella. These injuries in the opinion of the Jail Medical Officer could have been caused while the deceased was being taken to the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital. As re¬gards the fact that the deceased was suffering from encephalitis, no document has been filed by the O.Ps. The affidavit of the Superintendent of Jail filed at a later stage as well as the affidavit filed on behalf of the Secretary to Government, Home Department, save and except saying that the deceased suspected case of encephalitis, the post-mortem report, which has detailed various injuries on the body of the deceased, some of which have been indicated in the foregoing paragraphs, the opinion of the Doctor that the external injuries Nos.1, 4, 5, 6, 8 & 9 are ante-mortem in nature and could have been caused by hard, blunt and rough contact and were not fatal either individually or combined¬ly, neither the Home Department nor the Jail Authority has taken any step for bringing the chemical repot of examination of vis¬cera to the notice of the Court. But learned counsel for the State produced the case diary, which indicates that benzodiaze¬pine group of drugs were detected in the viscera report as indi¬cated above and on the basis of the report, the final opinion as to cause of death given by the F.M.T. Department was due to over dose of Benzodiazepine group of drugs resulting in respiratory failure. 6. This is worse. 6. This is worse. It is not known as to how these drugs crept into the jail wards and ultimately reached the U.T.Ps. It cer¬tainly speaks volumes about the negligence on the part of the jail authority or that the jail authorities are giving the scope, for the reasons best known to them, for trafficking these drugs into the jail wards. However, coming to the nature of injury, as indicated in the post-mortem report, injury Nos.1, 4, 5, 6 & 9 are ante mortem in nature. There is no clear explanation as to the cause of such injuries, which normally cannot be caused in one fall. So if we accept the version in the affidavits of the Home Department and the jail authority and the final opinion of the doctor that the deceased died due to over dose of Nitroson-10, then the death is definitely due to negligence of the author¬ities, for which the Nitroson-10 group of drugs reached the U.T.Ps. inside jail. Apart from that, if we look at the external injuries on the body of the deceased, more specifically injury Nos.1, 4, 5, 6 & 9, the version of the authority that they are due to fall and might have been caused while he was transported to S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack, cannot be accept¬ed. So the cause of external injuries on the body of the deceased is shrouded in misery and no cogent explanation is coming forward from the authority or from the case diary. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the death of the deceased was due to negli¬gence on the part of the Officers concerned, who were in-charge of proper watch and ward duty of U.T.Ps. With regard to the question whether the prayer of the peti¬tioner for compensation can be allowed, it is already settled and no more res integra in view of the decisions in the cases of Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa* (1993) 2 SCC 746 , People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1203 , Kalpana Mandal & others v. State of Orissa, (2007) 36 OCR 836 : 2007 (I) OLR-410 and Ahalya Pradhan v. State of Orissa & others* (2009) 42 OCR-602. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the son of the petitioner was doing grocery business. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the son of the petitioner was doing grocery business. As per the interim direction of this Court, the petitioner has already received a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs. Considering the age of the deceased and looking at his character and the offences he was implicated with and the circum¬stances, in which the deceased died, we are of the considered opinion that grant of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand) as compensation to the petitioner would be just and proper and we direct accordingly. Since the petition¬er has already received Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs), let the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Let a free copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the State. B.K. NAYAK, J. I agree. Petition allowed.