JUDGMENT : Renuka Yara, J. Heard Sri Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home for appellants; Sri C. Prathap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Palle Sri Harinath, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae. 2. This Intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 12.03.2024, wherein, the writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 vide W.P.No.30961 of 2012 has been allowed awarding compensation of Rs.7,20,000/-. After deducting the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which has already been paid, the appellants were directed to pay compensation of 6,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of death of deceased i.e. 04.07.2012 to till realization to respondent No.1. 3. The back ground facts giving rise to the appeal are that on 02.07.2012 morning, the convict prisoner No.9772 i.e. Dasari Narsimulu has stolen scissors from the prisoner barber and on 04.07.2012, he attacked another convict prisoner No.6917 i.e. Karolla Venkaiah and five other convict prisoners and caused serious bleeding injuries. The said Karolla Venkaiah was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment and he died on the same day while undergoing treatment. The deceased Karolla Venkaiah is husband of respondent No.1. 4. The National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the kin of the deceased convict prisoner No.6917 i.e. Karolla Venkaiah. The said amount has been disbursed to respondent No.1 and her kin. 5. Upon filing of the aforesaid writ petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- by respondent No.1, the appellants herein opposed the same on the ground that the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi directed the Government of Telangana to award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the next kin of the deceased and the said compensation has already been disbursed by placing strict adherence to the Rule No.576 (1) of the Telangana State Prison Rules, 1979. 6. The learned Single Judge upon hearing both the parties has awarded compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- to respondent No.1 and directed the appellants herein to pay Rs.6,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum after deducting an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which has already been paid to respondent No.1. 7. 6. The learned Single Judge upon hearing both the parties has awarded compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- to respondent No.1 and directed the appellants herein to pay Rs.6,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum after deducting an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which has already been paid to respondent No.1. 7. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed claiming that the Jail authorities have provided sufficient security in the jail ensuring that prisoners therein do not get harmed and there is no negligence on the part of the Jail authorities in providing proper medical treatment to the deceased prisoner in the Jail hospital as well as in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. 8. According to the appellants, the death of the deceased Karolla Venkaiah ought not to have been held as custodial death as the death occurred while he was undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. 9. Learned Government Pleader for Home for the State of Telangana appearing for the appellants submitted that as per Rule 576 (1) of the Telangana State Prison Rules, 1979, compensation has been paid and therefore, there is no further cause for making payment of compensation as directed by the learned Single Judge. He further submitted that application of Minimum Wages Act for determining the income of a convict prisoner is erroneous. As per G.O.Ms.No.203 Home (Prisons.B) Department, dated 06.08.2010, the Government has accorded enhanced incentives (wages) at Rs.70/- to Skilled Prisoners working in open air jails, Rs.50/- to Skilled prisoners working in prison industries and Misc., and for Rs.30/- to Semi skilled prisoners employed in prison industries and services like sweeping etc. In case, the compensation is calculated on the basis of said G.O., it would amount to Rs.1,02,960/- and the said amount has already been paid to respondent No.1 pursuant to the order passed by the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge while granting compensation. He has placed reliance on the decision rendered in Malkiat Singh vs. State of U.P. , 1998 (9) SCC 351 , wherein, formula adopted in Motor Vehicles Act has been taken in computing compensation to be granted following death of a convicted prisoner. He has placed reliance on the decision rendered in Malkiat Singh vs. State of U.P. , 1998 (9) SCC 351 , wherein, formula adopted in Motor Vehicles Act has been taken in computing compensation to be granted following death of a convicted prisoner. Further, learned counsel referred to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a writ petition (civil) No.406 of 2013 - Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 prisons, 2017 (10) SCC 658 with respect to the various aspects surrounding custodial deaths. He also made a reference to the Memo issued by the Government of Karnataka on 07.11.2022 with respect to the policy for payment of compensation on account of unnatural deaths in the prisons in Karnataka State. The Government of Karnataka upon examining the matter has passed G.O.No.HD 148 PRA 2022, Bengaluru, dated 28.09.2022 formulating policy for payment of compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- on account of unnatural death in the prison due to quarrel among prisoners and Rs.5,00,000/- on account of unnatural death in the prison including suicide or any other acts. 11. Learned Amicus Curiae referred to catena of judgments dealing with payment of compensation on account of custodial deaths ranging from the years 1993 up to the year 2016. Among said cases, Kewal Pati v. State of U.P , [ (1995) 3 SCC 600 ] , Murti Devi v. State of Delhi and others , [ (1998) 9 SCC 604 ] , State of AP v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy , (2000) 5 SCC 712 , Madina v. State of Rajasthan , 2000 SCC OnLIne Raj 203 , Meena Singh v. State of Bihar , (2001) SCC Online Jhar 74 , Tmt. Rohini Lingam v. State , [2008 SCC OnLine Mad 1249] and Amandeep v. State of Punjab , [2012 SCC OnLine P & H 19844] , deal with instances where one prisoner was attacked by the co-prisoner leading to death, depending on circumstances, various amounts of compensation were awarded. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the compensation in the early 1990s was about Rs.1,00,000/- followed by a gradual increase leading to payment of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. In Nina Rajan Pillai v. Union of India , [2011 SCC OnLine Del 2252] , on account of death of a prisoner due to inadequate medical treatment given by the jail authorities, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was awarded as compensation to the wife. In Nina Rajan Pillai v. Union of India , [2011 SCC OnLine Del 2252] , on account of death of a prisoner due to inadequate medical treatment given by the jail authorities, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was awarded as compensation to the wife. In Sabu E.K. v. State of Kerala , [ (2016) 4 KLJ 105 ] , on account of torture of a victim in the police station, who succumbed to injuries, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was awarded as compensation to the mother. 12. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others , [ (1975) 3 SCC 185 ] , just because an individual is convicted, he cannot be deprived of human rights. There may be deprivation of freedom of movement, however, there can be no deprivation of right to life. When such a right is violated irrespective of the security arrangements made by the prison authorities, the attempt made by the appellants to evade responsibility on the ground that there were adequate measures in place cannot be countenanced. Further, the deceased Karolla Venkaiah was attacked in the prison and therefore, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment. Merely on account of death of the deceased in a Government Hospital while undergoing treatment does not mean that the death did not occur while the prisoner was in custody. Even while undergoing treatment, the deceased was in police custody and therefore, the death of the deceased Karolla Venkaiah in a Government Hospital followed by a fatal attack in the prison has to be categorized as custodial death. 13. A perusal of the submissions made by the learned counsel shows that an unfortunate happening of custodial death has occurred and there is no policy in place for dealing with payment of compensation to the kin of the said victim. In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa , [ (1993) 2 SCC 746 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the defence of sovereign immunity being inapplicable, and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights, there can be no question of such a defence being available in the constitutional remedy. It is this principle which justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 14. It is this principle which justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 14. Coming to the quantum of compensation, computing compensation on the basis of formula followed in Motor Vehicle Accident cases is not new as the said formula was already followed in the case of Malkiat (supra 1) . The policy formulated by the State of Karnataka vide G.O.No.HD 148 PRA 2022, Bengaluru, dated 28.09.2022, seems to be one and only one in this Country for payment of compensation on account of unnatural deaths in the prisons in Karnataka State. In Karnataka State, the amount of compensation paid for unnatural death on account of quarrel among prisoners to the kin or legal heirs of the deceased prisoners is Rs.7,50,000/-. The compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge at Rs.7,20,000/- is very similar to the compensation awarded in Karnataka State in similar instances. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Before parting with the matter, we record our appreciation for the valuable assistance provided by learned Amicus Curiae Sri Vivek Jain. 15. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. The State may consider framing of policy for payment of compensation to victims of custodial deaths as done by the State of Karnataka. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.