JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:- By filing this writ petition, the petitioners being the legal representatives of Late Raj Mohan Tripura, (petitioner No. 1 being the wife and petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 being the sons and daughters) sought for monetary compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh) by way of public law remedy for the death of Rajmohan Tripura, while he was in judicial custody. Heard learned Sr. counsel, Mr. S. Deb for the petitioners and learned Addl. G.A., Mr. S. Chakraborty for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4. None appeared for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. 2. The petitioners, inter alia, contended that late Rajmohan Tripura was a misguided youth and joined unlawful extremist's organization and took arms with a view to waging war against the State. Respondent No. 1 made and announced various schemes calling upon the outlawed insurgents group to surrender and late Rajmohan Tripura was also influenced with such schemes announced by the respondent No. 1 and being persuaded by his relatives and well wishers, he also surrendered sometimes in the month of November/December, 2003 but after his surrender, no benefit so far announced by the respondent No. 3, in the scheme (Annexure-A to the writ petition) was provided to the said Rajmohan Tripura. He was rather detained in custody in the District Jail at Udaipur. He was with sound health and there was no sorts of illness and was aged 36 years at the relevant time. On 13th/14th September, 2003, the petitioner No. 1 was informed by the respondent No. 4 that her husband Rajmohan Tripura died and she was asked to remain present at the time of postmortem examination and that some of her relatives were present at the time of postmortem examination which was conducted over the dead body of Rajmohan Tripura. An unnatural death case under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered by the O.C. of R.K. Pur P.S. on 13.09.2004 at 08:15 hours on a report submitted by one Dr. An unnatural death case under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered by the O.C. of R.K. Pur P.S. on 13.09.2004 at 08:15 hours on a report submitted by one Dr. Madhusudhan Chatterjee of Tripura Sundari District Hospital, Udaipur and it was registered as UD Case No. 60 of 2004 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. It is contended by the petitioners that Rajmohan Tripura had no sorts of ailments and that in the postmortem report the observation about the cause of death was kept reserved since the viscera examination report was not received by that time and regarding any injury, the finding in the postmortem report was contradictory and not convincing. Since Rajmohan Tripura was a surrendered extremists, he was supposed to get all the benefits as per the scheme formulated by respondent No. 3 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and since Rajmohan died while he was in judicial custody, the petitioners were entitled to get compensation of ` 5,00,000/-. 3. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 by filing a common counter affidavit, inter alia, stated that Rajmohan Tripura was lodged in the District Jail, Udaipur on 30.03.2004 as per order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on that day, in connection with Case No. GR 206 of 2003 and GR 143 of 1999. The copies of those custody warrants were annexed as Annexure R/1 and R/2. On the night of 13th/14th September, 2003 the said Rajmohan Tripura had fallen ill and died at about 2-30 p.m. Postmortem examination was conducted by a Medical Board at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hospital at Agartala and the report was submitted pending viscera analysis report by the State Forensic Science Laboratory and there was no external or internal injury on the body of the deceased. An Unnatural Death (U.D.) Case was registered at R.K. Pur P.S. after the death of Rajmohan Tripura and it was duly enquired into and report was submitted. It is contended that Rajmohan Tripura died a natural death and there was no question of payment of any compensation. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 also submitted a joint counter affidavit, inter alia, contenting that Rajmohan Tripura never surrendered through Assam Rifle and there was no question of payment of any compensation under the scheme as claimed. 5. Learned Sr. counsel, Mr. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 also submitted a joint counter affidavit, inter alia, contenting that Rajmohan Tripura never surrendered through Assam Rifle and there was no question of payment of any compensation under the scheme as claimed. 5. Learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Deb appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that there is no dispute that Rajmohan had died while in judicial custody and was lodged in District Jail at Udaipur. On the night of 13th/14th September, 2003 he was brought dead to Tripura Sundari District Hospital, Udaipur and the doctor simply declared him as brought dead. So, it is evident that he died while he was in custody and the burden lies on the respondents to show as to how he died and since Rajmohan died while in judicial custody, the petitioners being the next kin of Rajmohan Tripura, are entitled to get compensation. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred the following case laws:-- (i) (1993) 2 SCC 746 (Nilabati Behera (Smt.) Alias Lalita Behera (through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. State of Orissa & Ors.), (ii) (2011) 14 SCC 481 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & Ors.), (iii) (1995) 4 SCC 262 (State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi & Ors.), (iv) (2013) 2 SCC 493 (Extra Judicial Execution victim Families Association (EEVFAM) & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. with Suresh Singh v. Union of India and Anr.), (v) (2011) 7 SCC 45 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 70 (Mehboob Batcha & Ors v. State, represented by Superintendent of Police). (vi) (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 469 (Ghurelal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan). 6. Appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 4, learned Addl. G.A., Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that Rajmohan Tripura died a natural death. Postmortem report conducted by the Medical Board at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, Hapania, Agartala, clearly shows that there was no external or internal injury and his visceras were preserved and subsequently the visceras were chemically examined in the State Forensic Science Laboratory and the report is lying in the file which has not been placed on record and the report shows that there was no poison or any other substance in the visceras. Since Rajmohan Tripura died a natural death, submits learned Addl. G.A., there is no point of payment of any compensation to the petitioners. 7. Since Rajmohan Tripura died a natural death, submits learned Addl. G.A., there is no point of payment of any compensation to the petitioners. 7. This is a writ petition seeking compensation for the death of Rajmohan Tripura while he was in judicial custody. The petitioners stated that Rajmohan Tripura surrendered pursuant to certain scheme declared by the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Nothing placed on record by the petitioners to show that Rajmohan Tripura surrendered pursuant to any such scheme declared by respondent Nos. 1 and 3. 8. It is an undisputed fact that Rajmohan Tripura was in judicial custody on the date of his death as alleged. There is no material to show that he died an unnatural death while in custody. Postmortem was conducted by a Medical Board and postmortem report nowhere shows that there was any injury externally or internally on the person of Rajmohan Tripura. Paragraph 7 of the postmortem report clearly indicates that no external injury was found in the body. While Rajmohan Tripura died a natural death, we find no reason at all to direct the respondents to pay compensation in any form to the petitioners. 9. The Supreme Court decisions referred by learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Deb, are on different context. We find no justification at all to discuss or to apply the ratio laid down in those decisions for deciding the present case. 10. In the case of State Financial Corporation and Anr. v. Jagadmba Oil Mills and Anr. reported in AIR 2002 SC 834 , the Supreme Court in Paragraph 19 and 20 observed thus:-- 19. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are not to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statues, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statues, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton (1951 AC 737 at P. 761), Lord Mac Dermot observed: The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J. as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge. 20. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER 294) Lord Reid said, "Lord Atkin's speech....is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances." Megarry, J. in (1971) 1 WLR 1062observed: "One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russell L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament." And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board, (1972) 2 WLR 537 Lord Morris said: There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. 11. In the case of Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1995) 3 SCC 367 the Supreme Court has observed that observation from a judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be read in isolation and divorced from the context in which the same were made and it is improper for any Court to take out a sentence from the judgment of the Supreme Court, divorced from the context in which it was given, and treat the such an isolated sentence as the complete enunciation of law by the Supreme Court. 12. The decisions referred by learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Deb in the context of the present case has no bearing and we have no hesitation to dismiss the writ petition but in the circumstances without costs. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.