Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 416 (GUJ)

Kakudiben Penubhai Vahoniya v. State of Gujarat

2010-09-08

AKIL KURESHI

body2010
Judgment Akil Kureshi, J.—This petition has been filed by wife of deceased Penubhai Panglabhai Vahoniya who died in police lock up on 10.9.2005. It is her case that her husband died due to police beating and that investigation into the said allegations should be handed over to independent agency. She has also prayed for compensation for the unnatural death of her husband in the police custody. 2. Briefly stated facts leading to the petition are as follows : 2.1 It is not in dispute that husband of the petitioner was arrested by the police on 9.9.2005 at 4:15 hours in connection with FIR being C.R. No. I-11/2003 involving offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 read with Section 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. He was kept in Dhanpur police station lock-up room. He was produced before the Court and released on bail. However, in connection with another Chapter case No. 271/2005, he was once again arrested at 20:30 hours on 9.9.2005 and kept in Dhanpur police station lock-up. At about 7 O’ clock in the morning on 10.9.2005 said Penubhai Panglabhai Vahoniya was found hanging from the neck with one end of a shawl, other end of which was tied to the iron rods of toilet of the lock-up room. Inquest was carried out in presence of Executive Magistrate. On account of death in police custody. Magisterial inquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. He recorded statements of several persons including the police officials, present petitioner and other relatives of deceased as well as doctors who had carried out the postmortem of the dead body. 2.2 In his report, which Sub-Divisional Magistrate forwarded to the District Magistrate, Dahod under letter dated 04.10.2005, he concluded that death of deceased Penubhai Panglabhai Vahoniya was on account of suicide by hanging. He was categorical on the issue that allegations of wife and other relatives of the deceased that the prisoner died due to police beating is not supported by any evidence. He however, found following irregularities on part of the police officials: (i) As per the statement of PSI, Dhanpur on 08.09.2005 some villagers of village Khalta Garbadi had caught deceased Penubhai Panglabhai Vahoniya and brought him before Dhanpur police station. Who these persons were and why they had caught deceased was not verified by the PSI. No complaint was also recorded with respect to this incident. Who these persons were and why they had caught deceased was not verified by the PSI. No complaint was also recorded with respect to this incident. He did not take care to find out with respect to which offence deceased was brought before the police by the villagers. (ii) When the deceased was arrested in connection with C.R. No. I-11/2003 on 9.9.2005 at 4:15 and thereafter once again when he was arrested at 20:30 on 9.9.2005 in connection with the Chapter case, members of the family of deceased Penubhai Panglabhai Vahoniya were not informed. Only Sarpanch of the village was intimated. (iii) On 09.09.2005, PSO Mohanbhai Sultanbhai Minama was in-charge of night duty. His seat was right opposite the lock-up. When he left his position, he ought to have stationed some other person for looking after, which he did not do. On account of this, during his absence incident seems to have taken place which shows negligence on part of the PSO. 2.3 District Magistrate, Dahod in his communication dated 13.12.2005 to the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Gandhinagar stated that the position of police lock-up in Dhanpur police station is right opposite the seat of PSO from where he can keep eye on the movement of prisoners. Further in the toilet of police lock-up there is only half door. Therefore, if a prisoner is standing up, his movements can be seen despite which the prisoner could hang himself from the iron rods of the toilet window only on account of negligence on part of the police employees on duty. He therefore, conveyed his agreement with the report dated 04.10.2005 of the magisterial inquiry. 3. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the affidavits and other documents on record, I find no substance in the grievance of the petitioner that her husband died due to police beating. A thorough magisterial inquiry was conducted to inquire into unnatural death of husband of the petitioner. Statements of police personal and other persons who would be in know of the things were recorded. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the deceased died on account of police beating. Inquest report, postmortem report and statements of doctors clearly establish these facts. Firstly, upon inquest, no serious bodily injuries were noticed. In the postmortem report as well as in statements, doctors have clearly indicated that the death was on account of hanging. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the deceased died on account of police beating. Inquest report, postmortem report and statements of doctors clearly establish these facts. Firstly, upon inquest, no serious bodily injuries were noticed. In the postmortem report as well as in statements, doctors have clearly indicated that the death was on account of hanging. Postmortem report does not indicate any other specific injuries except around the neck which would be the obvious result of hanging. Minor abrasions and bruises can be easily attributed to the process of deceased tying himself with the iron rods and thereafter hanging himself. There is thus no evidence whatsoever of the deceased having succumbed to the injuries caused by police beating in the lock-up. 4. It is however, intriguing as to why a young able-bodied person would commit suicide in police lock-up. In absence of any specific evidence in this regard, it would not be appropriate on my part to draw any conjectures. Nevertheless, one cannot lose sight of the report of Sub-Divisional Magistrate finding material irregularities in police procedure and negligence on part of some of the employees of the police department present. Nature of such irregularities contained in report dated 04.10.2005 have already been reproduced here-in-above. Sub-divisional Magistrate found PSI negligent in not taking certain steps. He also found PSO negligent in allowing such an incident to take place. The District Magistrate also concurred with the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. He found that since toilet in police lock-up of Dhanpur police station had only half door, any movement of the prisoner while standing up could be easily seen from outside. Thus movements of the deceased ought to have been spotted by the personals present at the time when he would have taken such an extreme step. Surely, it would have taken some time for the deceased to tie one end of the shawl on his neck and other on the iron rod of the window of the toilet and thereafter to commit suicide. With slightest vigil such suspicious movement could have been spotted. With little more care, a human life could have been saved. Surely, it would have taken some time for the deceased to tie one end of the shawl on his neck and other on the iron rod of the window of the toilet and thereafter to commit suicide. With slightest vigil such suspicious movement could have been spotted. With little more care, a human life could have been saved. It is thus clear but for the negligence on part of the administration from the time deceased was brought before the police station on previous day by the village till he tragically ended his life, there were procedural lapses on part of the police officials. State being principal employer cannot escape liability at-least to pay compensation to wife of the deceased. 5. I am conscious that if the reason for deceased to end his life cannot be connected with his arrest and beating by the police, it could be argued that he could have ended his life outside the police lock-up also. However, deceased was a prisoner. His movements were restricted by authority of law. His relatives were not allowed to have free access to him. Under ordinary circumstances, as a free person outside of the police detention, deceased would have the benefit of care and attention of his family and loved ones. They would surely have taken all possible care to see that if deceased was disturbed on account of some events, he would be persuaded not take such extreme step. Thus on account of his detention, deceased was deprived of care and emotion support and healing tough of his family and was left to brood in isolation and solitude and on the other hand the police officials acted negligently which permitted the deceased to take the extreme step. 6. I am conscious that ordinarily Court would not take up the issue of compensation in a writ petition. Firstly, since question of reason of death of a prisoner in such circumstances would be highly disputed question of fact. Secondly quantum of compensation also would be a disputed issue. In the present case however, the report of Sub-Divisional Magistrate is categorical on the role of the police officials. Report was accepted by the District Magistrate. State has not questioned the findings of such a report. Cause of death is thus laid bare before us. Secondly quantum of compensation also would be a disputed issue. In the present case however, the report of Sub-Divisional Magistrate is categorical on the role of the police officials. Report was accepted by the District Magistrate. State has not questioned the findings of such a report. Cause of death is thus laid bare before us. With respect to quantum of compensation, I do not propose to go into precise calculation but award ad-hoc compensation leaving it open to the petitioner to seek further remedy from the competent Civil Court. 7. In the result, request for handing over investigation to independent agency is turned down. However, respondents are directed to pay ad-hoc compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the petitioner which shall be done within four weeks from today. It is clarified that this would not debar the petitioner from seeking further compensation in accordance with law, if so available. 8. Petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute to the above extent.