Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1276 (JHR)

Archana Kuer v. State of Jharkhand

2013-11-26

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Challenging order dated 14.08.2012 whereby the claim of the petitioner for compensation on account of death of her husband by the extremists has been rejected, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. On 05.10.2009, the brother-in-law of the petitioner lodged a report, on the basis of which a First Information Report being Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 6 of 2009 was registered. Since the compensation to the petitioner was not paid in terms of the Government Resolution dated 07.05.2003, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1614 of 2012 which was disposed of by order dated 03.04.2012 directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the claim of the petitioner. In compliance of the said order, the impugned order dated 14.08.2012 has been passed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that while rejecting the claim of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 14.08.2012, the respondent has taken into account a factually incorrect incident. The Government Resolution dated 07.05.2003 does not provide that a person accused of and offence would not be entitled for grant of compensation. In the impugned order dated 14.08.2012, the respondent has taken a ground that since the petitioner's husband was made an accused in Ramgarh (Chainpur) P.S. Case No. 64 of 2007 registered under Section 304-B/201/34 of I.P.C. therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for grant of compensation. The Government Resolution dated 07.05.2003 only provides that if a deceased person himself was a member of any extremists organisation, his dependents/family members would not be granted any compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on an order passed in Madhuri Devi vs. State of Jharkhand & other reported in (2006) 3 JCR 262 (Jhr.). 5. Mr. Sunil Singh, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the prayer of the petitioner. 6. On a perusal of the documents on record, I find that the Government Resolution dated 07.05.2003 was issued by the Government of Jharkhand with a view to provide help to family in distress. It was thought appropriate by the State Government to extend monetary benefit to the family members/dependents of the person who was killed in the extremists attack. The said Resolution expressly excludes the claim for such persons who themselves were members of extremist organisations. It was thought appropriate by the State Government to extend monetary benefit to the family members/dependents of the person who was killed in the extremists attack. The said Resolution expressly excludes the claim for such persons who themselves were members of extremist organisations. The impugned order dated 14.08.2012 would disclose that the F.I.R. being Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 6 of 2009 was lodged and a charge-sheet has now been submitted. 7. Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act reads as under:- “114. Court may presume existence of certain facts–The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustrations – The Court may presume....................................................................... (e) That judicial and official acts have been regularly performed...................” 8. In view of the aforesaid and the fact that specific finding has been recorded in the impugned order dated 14.08.2012 that the husband of the petitioner himself was a member of the extremist orgnisation, I do not find the claim of the petitioner tenable. Referring to the judgment in Madhuri Devi (supra), I find that in the said case there was no such finding recorded by the authority that the deceased was a member of extremists organisation and in the said case only the claim for compassionate appointment was considered. I further find that charge-sheet has been submitted in the said case and thus, the allegations in the F.I.R. have been found true. The representation filed by the brother of the deceased cannot be considered, as the F.I.R. was lodged on 05.10.2009, whereas the said representation is dated 10.03.2010. This was clearly an after thought. 9. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition lacks merit and accordingly, it is dismissed.