Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 133 (MAN)

Athokpam v. State of Manipur

2014-11-28

LAXMI KANTA MOHAPATRA, N.KOSIWAR SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ. 1. Petitioner is the widow of late Athokpam Angousana Meitei. The writ application has been filed praying for compensation on allegation that late husband of the petitioner was taken to custody by the Thoubal District Commandos, stationed at Laphupat Tera Dhabhalokhong on 28.2.2011 and was tortured to death. 2. It is alleged by the petitioner that her deceased husband was arrested by the Thoubal District Commandos stationed at Laphupat Tera Dhabhalokhong on 27.2.2011 at about 5 PM while he was cutting firewood in his residence. No arrest memo was issued and the deceased was forcibly taken in a police vehicle. When the petitioner and her daughter requested the Commandos not to arrest the deceased or disclose the reason for arresting him, their requests were turned down. After the deceased was taken away by the police personnel, the petitioner's son and some other persons went in search of him to different places including Sugunu P.S. where they were informed that the deceased husband of the petitioner might have been arrested by the personnel of Laphupat Tera Dhabhalokhong Police Out post. Thereafter, they hired a vehicle and went to the said Out-Post and on enquiry they were informed that the deceased husband had been arrested and put in the Lock-up. It was also informed to them that the deceased had been arrested on allegation of selling weapons/guns. The police personnel also asked petitioner to produce the weapons/guns which the deceased had kept and accordingly the petitioner produced a gun and prayed for release of her husband. In the night of 27.2.2011, it is alleged that, the deceased was seriously beaten by the police commandos. In the morning of 28.2.2011 the petitioner was permitted to meet the deceased by the Commander, but she found the deceased not in a position to move without support while coming out of the toilet crawling on the ground. They were contusions and abrasions on the body of the deceased and he was not able to speak. After paying a sum of Rs. 2000/- her husband was released and was taken to hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. It is specifically alleged by the petitioner that her husband having died because of the injuries sustained by him while in police custody, she is entitled to compensation. 3. After paying a sum of Rs. 2000/- her husband was released and was taken to hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. It is specifically alleged by the petitioner that her husband having died because of the injuries sustained by him while in police custody, she is entitled to compensation. 3. The respondents took a stand that on 27.2.2011 the police received information from a reliable source that the deceased was actively involved in committing extortion of money from general public in and around the Sugnu Napat Mayai Leikai and was acting on behalf of a banned outfit called, UNLF. On receipt of such information, the police team rushed to the area and picked the deceased from his residence on 27.2.2011. On physical examination, it appeared that the deceased was suffering from diabetes and on being questioned also, he said that he was suffering from liver cirrhosis. Thereafter, family members were asked to take him back. According to the respondents, death of the deceased was because of the ailments he was suffering from and not because of the allegations made by the petitioner. 4. On consideration of the allegations made by the petitioner and the stand taken by the respondents, Court directed an enquiry to be conducted by the learned District Judge, Manipur West and in compliance with the said order, the learned District Judge, Manipur West conducted the enquiry and has submitted his report Dt. 28.6.2014 before this Court. The learned District Judge has held that though the deceased was suffering from certain ailments, he could have lived for some time, but because of the injuries sustained by him during the period he was in police custody, the death occurred. 5. Mr. H. Premkrishna Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon the report of the learned District Judge and submitted that the report of the learned District Judge should be accepted and compensation should be granted in favour of the petitioner. Mr. RS Reisang, learned Sr. GA opposed the enquiry report on the ground that admittedly the deceased husband of the petitioner was suffering from serious ailments and the injuries sustained by him are not so serious in order to cause death. Mr. RS Reisang, learned Sr. GA opposed the enquiry report on the ground that admittedly the deceased husband of the petitioner was suffering from serious ailments and the injuries sustained by him are not so serious in order to cause death. Therefore, the deceased having died because of the ailments he was suffering from, it has to be construed to be a natural death and the allegations of custodial torture resulting in death should not be accepted by the Court. 6. We have carefully gone through the enquiry report as well as the evidence adduced before the learned District Judge in course of the enquiry. PW-4 is the Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination. From his deposition, it appears that the deceased had sustained as many as 12 external injuries most of which are either lacerated or bruises on different parts of the body. The internal examination indicates that there was a scalp Haematoma on the right parietal region, the brain was found to be congested so also the lungs. The Doctor was of the opinion that the death of the deceased could be due to shock and haemotoma resulting from blunt force injury on his body. 7. Mr. RS Reisang, learned Sr. GA placed reliance on the histopathology report and submitted that the deceased was suffering from cirrhosis of liver and kidneys had acute tubular necrosis. Relying on the above histopathology report, it was contended by the learned Sr. GA that the death was natural. 8. It is true that the histopathology report shows that the deceased was suffering from liver cirrhosis and kidneys were affected by acute tubular necrosis but the finding of the Doctor, PW-4 is that the death of the victim could be due to shock and haemotoma resulting from blunt force injury sustained by him. The allegation that the deceased was assaulted mercilessly by the police officials while he was in their custody, is proved by the fact that as many as 12 external injuries were found on the body of the deceased. The photographs produced in course of the enquiry clearly indicate the manner in which the deceased had been assaulted while in the custody of the police. The Doctor, PW-4, having not opined that death of the deceased was natural, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned Sr. The photographs produced in course of the enquiry clearly indicate the manner in which the deceased had been assaulted while in the custody of the police. The Doctor, PW-4, having not opined that death of the deceased was natural, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned Sr. GA and on other hand, having found that there were almost 12 external injuries on the body of the deceased and these injuries were sustained by him while in police custody, we are of the view that there is no reason for us to differ with the finding arrived at by the learned District Judge in his report. 8.1 Having accepted the report of the learned District Judge, the other question that comes up for consideration is what should be the quantum of compensation? As is evident from the writ application, the deceased was 52 years of age at the time of his death. Nothing is mentioned in the writ application with regard to his income prior to his death except a bald averment that he was earning Rs. 35,000/- per month as a cultivator and seasonal worker. On consideration of the age of the deceased as well as the income he might be having to meet the household expenses, we are of the view that a consolidated sum of Rs. 5 lakh as compensation would be just and proper. 9. We, accordingly, allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakh to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order.