Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 53 (MAN)

Papu Sahu v. State of Manipur and Ors.

2015-04-09

KH.NOBIN SINGH, LAXMI KANTA MOHAPATRA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. This case was heard in part on 12.3.2015 and it was directed to be listed on 19.3.2015. The same could not be listed on 19.3.2015 and it was listed on 07.4.2015. On that day, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for passing over the case for the day and the prayer was allowed. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner is absent on call. We, therefore, heard Shri RS Reisang, learned Sr. G.A. for the respondents. 2. This writ application has been filed for a direction to the respondents to produce the enquiry report in the UD Case No. 7 of 2002 and also for a direction for payment of compensation to the family members of the deceased, who was a under trial prisoner at the time of his death. 3. The petitioner is the son of the deceased. The deceased was arrested in connection with FIR case No. 89(3)2001 Imphal PS registered for commission of offence u/s. 324/307 IPC and was in Central Jail, Sajiwa having been remanded to judicial custody by the learned JMFC, Imphal. On 1.6.2002, at about 11:30 AM the family members of the deceased were informed about the death of the deceased after which they had gone to see the dead body at RIMS hospital. The allegation in the writ petition is that the deceased was not given any kind of treatment and was never medically examined and due to negligence on the part of the Jail staff, he died. The petitioner also suspects that the death of the deceased was not natural and he was killed. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed for a direction to pay compensation. 4. An affidavit in-opposition has been filed by the respondent No. 2 wherein it is stated that when the deceased was in Jail custody in the Central Jail, Sajiwa, he was found unconscious and was immediately shifted to RIMS hospital where he was declared dead. It is, therefore, stated in the counter affidavit that there was no negligence on the part of the Jail authority and death was natural. 5. Considering the allegations made in the writ petition, we called for the UD case records and from the UD Case records, we find that in the morning of 1.6.2002 during unlocking prisoners at about 5:20 AM all the prisoners were called to outside and while counting the heads, one prisoner was found missing. 5. Considering the allegations made in the writ petition, we called for the UD case records and from the UD Case records, we find that in the morning of 1.6.2002 during unlocking prisoners at about 5:20 AM all the prisoners were called to outside and while counting the heads, one prisoner was found missing. Thereafter, one of the Warders along with a prisoner namely Willamkhup entered the room and found the father of the deceased sleeping. When he was asked to wake up, there was no response. He was found to be in unconscious condition. Thereafter, he was brought to the medical room of the Jail first and later on referred to J.N. Hospital by the Jail authority. However, when they entered into the room, they found the deceased not only in unconscious state but also there was no sign of breathing. However, his hands were moving and therefore the Warder thought the deceased might survive. After death of the deceased, post mortem examination has been conducted. The P.M. report shows that the deceased died because of heart failure and it was a natural death. 6. We, therefore, find from the record of the UD case that immediate steps were taken by the Jail authority to shift the deceased to the medical room of the Jail first and later to JN Hospital for treatment. He died of heart failure and as per post mortem report he died a natural death. We are, therefore, of the opinion that considering the nature of death met by the father of the deceased, no compensation is payable. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.