Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1533 (MP)

Rashmi Singh (Smt. ) v. State of M. P.

2022-12-16

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI

body2022
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, who is the widow of accused, who died while undergoing sentence in jail, for grant of compensation to the petitioner due to loss of life of her husband and other consequential reliefs. 2. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition are that the deceased husband of the petitioner was involved in a criminal case registered as Crime No.105/2010 at Police Station Amarpatan, District Satna (M.P.) for the offences punishable under the provisions of Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Pursuant to the registration of the crime, the husband of the petitioner was arrested on 15.3.2010 and sent to judicial custody at Central Jail, Satna. On 23.4.2010, the petitioner received a call from the Jail Authorities informing about the health condition of her husband and called her to meet him in the hospital. When the petitioner reached the hospital, she found her husband in dead condition and his body was kept in the mortuary. The petitioner was surprised to know that her husband has died due to intake of some poison. Thereafter, the Sessions Judge, District Satna directed a judicial inquiry on 2.6.2010. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Stana, conducted the inquiry after following due process and recorded the statements of all witnesses. After inquiry, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that death was occurred due to consuming poison. It was further opined by him that at around 8.00 - 8.30, the health of the deceased started deteriorating and he felt uneasy and had pain in the chest, after which he was referred to the District Hospital Satna. After due check-up, he was taken to the Higher Medical Centre for treatment. The inquiry officer further raised questions regarding the presence of pesticides/poison inside the jail and opined that the death of the petitioner’s husband was occurred due to negligence on the part of the jail authorities. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Satna, submitted its report on 12.7.2012. It was clearly established that there were certain people, who in connivance with the jail authorities, wanted to kill the petitioner’s husband. After the death of the husband, the petitioner filed a representation for taking action against erring jail officials. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Satna, submitted its report on 12.7.2012. It was clearly established that there were certain people, who in connivance with the jail authorities, wanted to kill the petitioner’s husband. After the death of the husband, the petitioner filed a representation for taking action against erring jail officials. In reply, it was informed that vide order dated 4.6.2014, Shri Sanjay Pandey, the then Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Satna was let off by a mere warning, whereas Shri Manoj Kumar Chaurasia, the then Assistant Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Satna was conferred with a punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. However, no compensation was paid to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming following relief:- “7.1 It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to, direct an independent probe from Central Bureau of Investigation (Respondent No.3). 7.2 It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may also be pleased award compensation to the tune of Rs.50 lacs to the petitioner due to loss of life of her husband. 7.3 Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit may be passed. 7.4 Cost of the petition be also awarded.” 3. Per contra, the return has been filed by the respondents/State in which it is stated that the judicial inquiry was conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Satna and negligence on the part of some officials of the jail department was found and punishment was accordingly imposed. It is further submitted that so far as the compensation part is concerned, the contention of the petitioner that at the relevant time, her husband was earning Rs.15,000/- per month is incorrect, therefore, the same is denied. In absence of cogent finding regarding involvement, conspiracy or responsibility of the jail authorities in the death of the husband of the petitioner inside the jail premises, no direction can be issued to pay the compensation. It is a settled proposition of law that the claim for compensation cannot be decided under the writ proceedings as quantum of compensation claimed is required to be substantiated, established and proved by leading cogent evidence. In the instant petition, there is not a single averment on the basis whereof, the magical figure of Rs.50 Lakhs is demanded by way of compensation. In the instant petition, there is not a single averment on the basis whereof, the magical figure of Rs.50 Lakhs is demanded by way of compensation. So far as the second relief is concerned, in catena of cases, the Hon’ble apex Court has already held that in each and every case, investigation by CBI or CID cannot be directed in a routine manner unless and until exceptional illegality or irregularity into the ongoing investigation is pointed out. The CJM, District Satna has already conducted the investigation and has found certain lapses on the part of the jail authorities. Thus, it is contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The moot question, which is to be examined is whether in the given circumstances the petitioner would be entitled to grant of any compensation in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not ? A constitutional Bench of the apex Court in the case of Nilabati Behera (Smt.) alias Lalita Behera (through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) v. State of Orissa and others as reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746 , has held that the award of compensation in public law proceeding is also permissible as the difference from the compensation in private tort law action has to be drawn. It has been categorically held by the apex Court that where it is found that any injury is caused to the citizen of India on account of negligent act of the State authorities, the Court in public law proceedings would also be competent to grant compensation. While discussing the various laws and considering the international Covenant, the apex Court has held in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the report, which reads thus: “22. The above discussion indicates the principle on which the Court's power under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution is exercised to award monetary compensation for contravention of a fundamental right. This was indicated in Rudul Sah and certain further observations therein adverted to earlier, which may tend to minimize the effect of the principle indicated therein, do not really detract from that principle. This is how the decisions of this Court in Rudul Sah and others in that line have to be understood and Kasturilal distinguished therefrom. This was indicated in Rudul Sah and certain further observations therein adverted to earlier, which may tend to minimize the effect of the principle indicated therein, do not really detract from that principle. This is how the decisions of this Court in Rudul Sah and others in that line have to be understood and Kasturilal distinguished therefrom. We have considered this question at some length in view of the doubt raised, at times, about the propriety of awarding compensation in such proceedings, instead of directing the claimant to resort to the ordinary process of recovery of damages by recourse to an action in tort. In the present case, on the finding reached, it is a clear case for award of compensation to the petitioner for the custodial death of her son. 23. The question now, is of the quantum of compensation. The deceased Suman Behera was aged about 22 years and had a monthly income between Rs.1200 to Rs.1500. This is the finding based on evidence recorded by the District Judge, and there is no reason to doubt its correctness. In our opinion, a total amount of Rs.1,50,000 would be appropriate as compensation, to be awarded to the petitioner in the present case. We may, however, observe that the award of compensation in this proceeding would be taken into account for adjustment, in the event of any other proceeding compensation on the same ground, so that the amount to this extent is not recovered by the petitioner twice over. Apart from the fact that such an order is just, it is also in consonance with the statutory recognition of this principle of adjustment provided in section 357(5) CrPC and section 141(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.” 6. In the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of W.B. as reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 , further considering the law laid-down by the apex Court in the case of Nilabati Behera (Smt.) (supra), the apex Court has held that compensation for established breach of fundamental right can be granted under the public law by the Supreme Court and by the High Courts in addition to the private law remedy for tortious action and punishment to wrongdoer under the criminal law. The object of the public law proceeding was also considered by the apex Court in the said case. The object of the public law proceeding was also considered by the apex Court in the said case. Further considering the aforesaid law in the case of Sube Singh vs. State of Haryana and others as reported in (2006) 3 SCC 178 , the apex Court in paragraph 38 of the report has held thus : “38. It is thus now well settled that the award of compensation against the State is an appropriate and effective remedy for redress of an established infringement of a fundamental right under Article 21, by a public servant. The quantum of compensation will, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Award of such compensation (by way of public law remedy) will not come in the way of the aggrieved person claiming additional compensation in a civil court, in the enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor come in the way of the criminal court ordering compensation under section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure.” 7. Further in paragraphs 45 and 46 of the aforesaid report, certain instances have been pointed out in which compensation can be granted in the given circumstances where violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India involving custodial death or torture is established. The report reads thus : “45. Cases where violation of Article 21 involving custodial death or torture is established or is incontrovertible stand on a different footing when compared to cases where such violation is doubtful or not established. Where there is no independent evidence of custodial torture and where there is neither medical evidence about any injury or disability, resulting from custodial torture, nor any mark/scar, it may not be prudent to accept claims of human rights violation, by persons having criminal records in a routine manner for awarding compensation. That may open the floodgates for false claims, either to mulct money from the State or as to prevent or thwart further investigation. The courts should, therefore, while jealously protecting the fundamental rights of those who are illegally detained or subjected to custodial violence, should also stand guard against false, motivated and frivolous claims in the interests of the society and to enable the police to discharge their duties fearlessly and effectively. While custodial torture is not infrequent, it should be borne in mind that every arrest and detention does not lead to custodial torture. 46. While custodial torture is not infrequent, it should be borne in mind that every arrest and detention does not lead to custodial torture. 46. In cases where custodial death or custodial torture or other violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 is established, the courts may award compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 or 226. However, before awarding compensation, the Court will have to pose to itself the following questions : (a) Whether the violation of Article 21 is patent and incontrovertible, (b) whether the violation is gross and of a magnitude to shock the conscience of the Court, (c) whether the custodial torture alleged has resulted in death or whether custodial torture is supported by medical report or visible marks or scars or disability. Where there is no evidence of custodial torture of a person except his own statement, and where such allegation is not supported by any medical report or other corroborative evidence, or where there are clear indications that the allegations are false or exaggerated fully or in part, the Courts may not award compensation as a public law remedy under Article 32 or 226, but relegate the aggrieved party to the traditional remedies by way of appropriate civil/criminal action.” 8. Lastly the Apex Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad District, Dharwad and others v. Shivakka (2) and others as reported in (2011) 12 SCC 419, has held the manner of considering the quantum of grant of compensation in such public law proceeding where the courts are required to take note of certain eventualities, which have taken place, such as the act on account of which the injury in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India is caused by public authorities to the complainant or to the deceased. 9. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the State Government in co-ordination with the Central Government, has framed the scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation and deciding the quantum of compensation to the crime victims or their dependents, according to their financial status, who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation, which is known as “Madhya Pradesh Crime Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015” (hereinafter shall be referred to as “Scheme of 2015”). The schedule appended to the scheme of 2015 culls out the amount of compensation to be paid in respect of loss of life (death) of an earning member, which is quantify to maximum of Rs.4 Lakh. In the case of Nilabati Behera (Smt.) (supra), the apex Court has categorically held that even in a writ proceeding also adequate compensation can be granted. This being so, the respondents/State is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. 10. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner was in custody at the time of his death. The judicial inquiry/probe was conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Satna and it was found that there has been negligence on the part of the jail authorities. According to the scheme of 2015, the petitioner is entitled for maximum compensation of Rs.4 Lakh in lieu of death of her husband. In view of the aforesaid, the respondents are directed to pay Rs.4 Lakhs (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) as compensation to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. The State would be free to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of the amount of compensation from the concerned officials, if so advised. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No order as to costs.