JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Binit Chandra, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-III, appearing for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for a direction upon the authorities to hand over the case to any other independent agency, particularly the CBI, considering that the husband of the petitioner was put to death in police custody, in connection with Lesliganj P.S. case No. 19 of 2015, which was instituted on the basis of the complaint case No. 1333 of 2014, which was sent under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter the said case was registered, now the case is pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Palamu at Daltonganj. 3. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the wife of Late Ayodhya Mahto, resident of Village-Lukuwa, P.O.-Ambabar, P.S.-Pipratar, District-Palamau. He submits that on 09.09.2014 when the petitioner was present in her house with her husband Ayodhya Mahto, the Officer-in-Charge of Lesliganj Police Station Nirmal Oraon has come to the house of the petitioner along with constables Mukesh Singh, Raghunath Paswan and Chaitu Ram and asked her husband to produce her son Manoj Mahto. He further submits that when the husband of the petitioner asked them as to why they are searching for Manoj Mahto and intimated that Manoj Mahto is not present in the house. He further submits that the Officer-in-charge of Lesliganj P.S. Nirmal Oraon told that there is a case against Manoj Mahto, as such either they should produce Manoj Mahto or he will arrest the husband of the petitioner and in the meanwhile villagers also gathered there and after knowing the position, raised protest, then said Officer-in-Charge threatened and said that if they will resist the police, then they will be also arrested. He further submits that due to fear and threatening, the villagers as well as petitioner has been compelled to keep mum and the Officer-in-charge with the help of constables have forcibly taken away the husband of the petitioner. He further submits that after three days i.e. on 12.09.2014, the husband of the petitioner retuned back and disclosed that the Officer-in-Charge as well as aforesaid constables have freed him with a direction to the husband of the petitioner that he will arrange Rs. 1,00,000/-. He further submits that after three days i.e. on 12.09.2014, the husband of the petitioner retuned back and disclosed that the Officer-in-Charge as well as aforesaid constables have freed him with a direction to the husband of the petitioner that he will arrange Rs. 1,00,000/-. He further submits that on 18.10.2014 at about 10.00 A.M., while the husband of the petitioner was ploughing the land near his house, once again, the Officer-in-Charge along with said constables has come and taken the husband of the petitioner in their custody and when the husband of the petitioner did not return till the evening, then the petitioner along with villagers and others went to the police station and saw that the police was torturing her husband physically and mentally. He further submits that on 19.10.2014 at about 3.00 P.M. the son of the petitioner has got information on his mobile that Ayodhya Mahto died in police custody and the police has brought the dead body of the deceased to hospital for postmortem without giving intimation to the petitioner or any other family members about the death of the husband of the petitioner. He further submits that the son of the petitioner raised an objection vide letter dated 19.10.2014 to the Superintendent of Police, Palamau, about the postmortem, which was done without giving any intimation to the family members of the deceased family, which is contained in Annexure-1 to this petition. He further submits that the son of the petitioner also represented to the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau vide letter dated 19.10.2012 to take action against the Medical Officer, who illegally conducted the postmortem examination, which is contained in Annexure-2 to this petition. He further submits that the newspaper also reported about the death of the husband of the petitioner in police custody and the paper cuttings have been annexed as Annexure-3 series to this petition. He further submits that certain photographs of the deceased have been brought on record, which is Annexure-4 of this petition and original photographs of the deceased have been produced by Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, which has also been shown to Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the State and looking into the said photographs, it appears that several injuries are there on the dead body of the deceased. 4. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, which has also been shown to Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the State and looking into the said photographs, it appears that several injuries are there on the dead body of the deceased. 4. Mr. Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the police has already submitted the final form stating that this is a case of suicide. 5. In view of such submissions of the parties and looking into the materials available on record, it transpires from Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the State that death of the deceased has occurred in the police custody, however, the liability has been tried to be fastened upon the deceased, as he has committed suicide. However, looking into the photographs of the deceased, it is crystal clear that there are multiple injuries on the dead body of the deceased and this incident was brought to the knowledge of the Superintendent of Police as well as Deputy Commissioner of Palamau, but no action has been taken against the erring officials and final form has been submitted in a very perfunctory manner, showing that the death has occurred due to suicide by the deceased, which is not acceptable and admittedly the death has occurred in the police custody. 6. The post-mortem report has been brought on record in the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the State, which also suggests that there were multiple injuries on the body of the deceased, and thus view is fortified that the death has occurred due to torture and highhandedness of the police and concocted story of suicide has been made out by the police. 7. In view of the above, Article-21 of the Constitution of India has been violated at the instance of concerned police officer of the respondent-State and the deceased was wrongfully deprived of the right of personal liberty by the police authority. The death of the family member cannot be compensated by way of awarding certain money in favour of the survivor of the family and the compensation is only to console the family members. 8. Undisputedly, the deceased was a victim of custodial violence and died in police custody. The death of the family member cannot be compensated by way of awarding certain money in favour of the survivor of the family and the compensation is only to console the family members. 8. Undisputedly, the deceased was a victim of custodial violence and died in police custody. It was the liability of the State to pay compensation for violation of fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in view of the death in police custody or police lockup, State owes responsibility to protect the lives of the citizens. Reference may be made to the case of Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 585 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras-37, 39, 41 to 43 held as follows:- “37. However, this is not to state that the courts would not step in, when required, to protect fundamental rights. It is indisputable that the right to life and the right to liberty are of foremost importance in a democratic state and, therefore, any form of torture would violate the right to life and is prohibited by Article 21 of the Constitution. Such action would be unconstitutional under Article 21 and would fail the test of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution. Indeed, the courts have been at the forefront in protecting and safeguarding individual rights. In 1982, on the basis of a letter written by a journalist complaining of custodial violence suffered by women prisoners in police lock-ups in the city of Bombay, this Court in Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 2 SCC 96 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 353 had issued the guidelines to safeguard the rights of arrested persons including female prisoners to afford them protection in police lock-ups from possible torture or ill-treatment. A person detained in a prison is entitled to live with human dignity and his detention in prison should be regulated by a procedure established by law which must be reasonable, fair and just. This can be done by applying, elucidating and even creatively expanding existing laws and principles on case-to-case basis. Judiciary while exercising its jurisdiction in this manner is not enacting or legislating but applying the Constitution and protecting fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. 39. This can be done by applying, elucidating and even creatively expanding existing laws and principles on case-to-case basis. Judiciary while exercising its jurisdiction in this manner is not enacting or legislating but applying the Constitution and protecting fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. 39. We would take note of the judgment of this Court in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 92, wherein the following directions/guidelines with respect to rights/custodial torture were issued : (SCC pp. 435-36, para 35) “(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register. (2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. (3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee. (4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest. (5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained. (5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained. (6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is. (7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The “Inspection Memo” must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee. (8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the State or Union Territory concerned. Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all tehsils and districts as well. (9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his record. (10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation. (11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.” 41. In terms of the aforesaid edicts, legal jurisprudence has developed for providing compensation for the unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty as a public remedy in addition to claims in private law for damages by tortious acts of public servants. In terms of the aforesaid edicts, legal jurisprudence has developed for providing compensation for the unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty as a public remedy in addition to claims in private law for damages by tortious acts of public servants. In D.K. Basu [D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 92] the public law remedy for award of compensation was elucidated as arising from indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 and justified on the ground that the purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to ensure that the citizens live under a legal system where their rights and interests are protected and preserved. For the grant of compensation, therefore, proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution are entertained when violation of the fundamental rights granted under Article 21 is established. In such cases, claims of a citizen are tried on the principle of strict liability where defence of sovereignty may not be available. In S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews [S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews, (2018) 10 SCC 804 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 682] where criminal proceedings were initiated against Nambi Narayanan but it was found that the prosecution story was a sham, compensation of Rs 50 lakhs was awarded for the anxiety suffered and maltreatment meted out to him. 42. We have no hesitation in observing that notwithstanding the aforesaid directions in D.K. Basu [D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 92] and the principles of law laid down in Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 1 and S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews, (2018) 10 SCC 804 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 682, this Court can, in an appropriate matter and on the basis of pleadings and factual matrix before it, issue appropriate guidelines/directions to elucidate, add and improve upon the directions issued in D.K. Basu [D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 92] and other cases when conditions stated in para 29 supra are satisfied. However, this is not what is urged and prayed by the applicant. However, this is not what is urged and prayed by the applicant. The contention of the applicant is that this Court must direct the legislature, that is, Parliament, to enact a suitable standalone comprehensive legislation based on the UN Convention and this direction, if issued, would be in consonance with the Constitution of India. This prayer must be rejected in light of the aforesaid discussion. 43. Notwithstanding rejection of the prayer made by the applicant, we would in terms of the above discussion clarify that this would not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the courts to deal with individual cases of alleged custodial torture and pass appropriate orders and directions in accordance with law.” 9. Reference may further be made to the case of Pravat Chandra Mohanty v. State of Odisha, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 529 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-40, held as under:- “40. The custodial violence on the deceased which led to the death is abhorrent and not acceptable in the civilised society. The offence committed by the accused is crime not against the deceased alone but was against humanity and clear violations of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Although the High Court has awarded the compensation of Rs 3 lakhs in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased, we are of the view that compensation awarded was not adequate.” 10. In that view of the matter, this Court direct the respondent-State of Jharkhand to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-by way of compensation to this petitioner within four weeks. Payment of this amount by way of compensation would not preclude the petitioner from pursuing the remedy, civil as well as criminal, that is available to her in law in respect of wrongful confinement of the deceased. It is also open for the respondent-State to recover the amount paid by the State from the erring officer(s). 11. Considering the nature of injury of the deceased and also the prayer made in the petition for further investigation by the independent agency and further in a very perfunctory way the final form has been submitted making the case of suicide, this Court direct the Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to reopen the matter and reinvestigate the case against the erring official(s), who are responsible for such crime. 12. With the above observation, this petition is disposed of.