JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. Heard Mr. U. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard I. Riram, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4 and Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 3, 4 & 6. 2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceeding has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to pay adequate compensation for the custodial death of her son in Naharlagun Police Station lockup. 3. The facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under:- The petitioner herein, is the mother of late Abhijit Deka (Michael Deka), who is contended to have been arrested by the police of Naharlagun Police Station at 10.08.2015 at around 10.20 PM from his village situated at Parbotipur, under Harmoti Police out Post. It is contended that neither the petitioner nor her other family members were informed by the police about the reason for taking away her son. It is contended that subsequently, on enquiry, the family members could came to learn that the son of the petitioner was arrested in connection with Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 126/2015, under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. It is contended that on 13.08.2015 at around 6.30 PM, the petitioner and her family members were informed on phone that the son of the petitioner had committed suicide at around 4.00 PM on 13.08.2015, inside the police lockup. The petitioner and other family members of the deceased Abhijit Deka, alias Michael Deka, proceeded to Naharlagun Police Station after lodging an FIR at Laluk Police Station, Assam, against the Office In-charge, Naharlagun Police Station. It is contended that on reaching Naharlagun Police Station, at around 5.30 AM on 14.08.2015, the petitioner was taken to a damaged house, wherein the body of her deceased son was kept. It is contended by the petitioner that the body of her deceased son had decomposed and bad smell was coming out from the dead body and she apprehends that her son was murdered, prior to 13.08.2015. It is contended by the petitioner that the body of her deceased son had decomposed and bad smell was coming out from the dead body and she apprehends that her son was murdered, prior to 13.08.2015. It is contended that report, under Section 176 Cr.P.C., was prepared by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia, and therein, it is stated that the body of the son of the petitioner was found hanging from the ventilation through a blue colour cloth (sporting) tied on neck, inside the police lockup of Naharlagun Police Station, which was contended to be locked from outside. The petitioner, further projected that although the inquest report submitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia, had stated that the body of the son of the petitioner was found hanging from the ventilation through a blue colour cloth by (sporting) tied on neck, however, in a WT message issued by the Officer In-charge, Naharlagun Police Station to the Superintendent of Police, Capital Complex, Itanagar, it was projected that the son of the petitioner hanged himself from the door of lock by his shirt. Such contradiction, in the manner in which the body of the deceased son of the petitioner was found was contended to have given rise to an apprehension that the son of the petitioner was murdered outside the lockup and thereafter, he was hanged in the manner his body was so found. The petitioner has further contended that they had moved before the Member Secretary, District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh, praying for grant of adequate compensation in relation to the custodial death occasioning to her son. It is contended that although a recommendation in this connection was made by the Member Secretary, DLSA, Papumpare District, to the Member Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority (SLSA), Arunachal Pradesh, for release of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs) to the husband of the petitioner herein, on account of custodial death occasioning in respect of their son, no such amount has been released to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 4. The respondent nos. 3 & 5, by way of filing an affidavit in the matter has contended that the son of the petitioner was kept in the police lockup, in pursuance to the police remand granted by the jurisdictional Court, wherein, he was produced after his arrest. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 4. The respondent nos. 3 & 5, by way of filing an affidavit in the matter has contended that the son of the petitioner was kept in the police lockup, in pursuance to the police remand granted by the jurisdictional Court, wherein, he was produced after his arrest. It is stated that the son of the petitioner was kept in the police lockup along with other inmates namely, Tai Kaka and Sahil Ahmed arrested in connection with Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 142/15, in the same cell. It is projected that on 13.08.2015, at around 15.30 hrs, on expiry of the remand period of the arrested alleged accused Tai Tada, Tai Kaka and Sahil Ahmed, they were forwarded to the Court for further remand under proper escort and at about 16.40 hrs, while the escort party, with the remanded alleged accused Tai Kaka and Sahil Ahmed, had returned to the police station after leaving one of the under trial prisoner, Tai Tada at District Jail and while re-lodging the remaining under trial prisoners in the cell, the sentry deployed had noticed that the under trial prisoner Abhijit Deka alias Michael Deka had hung himself inside the lockup near the door. It is contended that the matter was immediately informed to the duty Officer S.I. Suresh Singh, who rushed to the lockup and found Abhijit Deka alias Michael Deka i.e., the son of the petitioner to have committed suicide by hanging. Accordingly, a case being Naharlagun P.S. UD Case No. 14/15, under Section 174 Cr.P.C., was registered. 5. It is contended that a judicial enquiry was initiated in the matter in the presence of the learned CIM, Yupia and the jurisdictional Extra Assistant Commissioner. The lockup cell was opened in the presence of the Magistrate and the dead body was brought down and the learned CJM, Yupia had conducted inquest over the body. The family members of the deceased under trial prisoner were also informed. After the inquest, the dead body was kept in Ramakrishna Hospital Morgue, Itanagar for preservation on 13.08.2015. The lockup cell was opened in the presence of the Magistrate and the dead body was brought down and the learned CJM, Yupia had conducted inquest over the body. The family members of the deceased under trial prisoner were also informed. After the inquest, the dead body was kept in Ramakrishna Hospital Morgue, Itanagar for preservation on 13.08.2015. It is further contended that later, on the next date, the dead body was brought from Ramakrishna Hospital Morgue, Itanagar to Tomo Riba Institute of Health, Medical and Science, Morgue, Naharlagun for identification and post-mortem and thereafter, the body was handed over to the family members of the deceased under trial prisoner. 6. The respondents have projected that the Inquest report submitted by the learned CJM, Yupia, in the matter, clearly goes to indicate that the death of the son of the petitioner had occasioned on account of suicide being committed by him. The Inquest report also reveals that there was no external injury marks found on the body of the deceased under trial prisoner. Accordingly, the learned CIM, Yupia, on the basis of the materials available on record and also as per the Inquest report, proceeded to submit the Closure report as the death was purely held to be suicidal in nature and no foul play thereof, could be detected. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. The facts as noticed herein above are not in dispute. The inconsistency highlighted is that in the Inquest report wherein, the dead body of the son of the petitioner was found to be hanging from the ventilation through a blue colour cloth (sporting) tied on the neck, inside the police lockup, whereas, in the GD entry, which has been brought on record through the affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 3 & 5; as well as the WT message dated 14.08.2015, it is seen that the son of the petitioner was found to have hung himself in the iron lockup door of the cell. 9. 3 & 5; as well as the WT message dated 14.08.2015, it is seen that the son of the petitioner was found to have hung himself in the iron lockup door of the cell. 9. It is to be decided in the present proceeding as to whether the son of the petitioner had committed suicide in the matter and even if, it is held that the son of the petitioner had committed suicide, whether the police personnel of the Naharlagun Police Station as well as the other police authorities, at the helm of affairs, were required to provide adequate protection to life and liberty of every person in their custody. 10. In the affidavit filed by the respondents, while the Inquest report of the learned CJM, Yupia has been projected to highlight the fact that the son of the petitioner had committed suicide, there is no indication in the affidavit as to the circumstances leading to the death of the son of the petitioner. It is a settled position that the authorities of the Police Station were required to look after the well being, including the protection of life of the under trial prisoners kept in the lockup of the jail. 11. This Court, had required Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, to receive instructions as to whether any departmental proceeding was instituted in the matter against the police personnel of the Naharlagun Police Station for the incident occasioning, leading to the death of the son of the petitioner. On instructions, Mr. Ete, has submitted that departmental proceedings were instituted against the sentry Constable Tongpua Rutum, S.I. Suresh Singh and Inspector Kobir Rangia. The memorandum of charge issued to the said police personnel dated 25.08.2015, would go to reveal that they were charged with gross mis-conduct and dereliction of duty on account of the fact that the under trial prisoner i.e., the son of the petitioner herein, while in police custody had committed suicide inside the Police Station lockup. 12. The Enquiry officer so appointed in the matter, on conclusion of the enquiry, held that the charges leveled against the said delinquents could not be established. 12. The Enquiry officer so appointed in the matter, on conclusion of the enquiry, held that the charges leveled against the said delinquents could not be established. However, it is seen that the jurisdictional Superintendent of police had disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry officer and had forwarded to the delinquents, his disagreement note, wherein, he had held that given the fact that there was a Sentry and a Duty Officer, detailed at the Police Station under the supervision of an Officer In-charge, commission of suicide by an arrested accused is a clear case of negligence on the part of the police personnel concerned. 13. Be that as it may, the steps taken in the matter by the respondents reveals that in the departmental proceedings drawn up against the police personnel, detailed to guard the arrested accused, negligence on their part in discharge of their duties had come to the forefront. 14. At this stage, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of D. K. Basu Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. , reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 , is required to be referred to. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its said decision, laid down the requirements to be followed in all the cases of arrest of an accused; it has also been held that failure to comply with those requirements shall, apart from rendering the official liable for departmental action, also rendered him liable to be punished for contempt of Court. After highlighting the different facets of custodial death, its remedy and preventive measures, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its said decision, had drawn the following conclusions: - "Thus, to sum up, it is now a well accepted proposition in most of the "jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy of redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must revive the amount of compensation from the State, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrong doer. The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must revive the amount of compensation from the State, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrong doer. In the assessment of compensation, the emphasis has to be on the compensatory and not on punitive element. The objective is to apply balm to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or the offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offence (irrespective of compensation) must be left to the criminal Courts in which the offender is prosecuted, which the State, in law, is duty bound to do, that award of compensation in the public law jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other action like civil suit for damages which is lawfully available to the victim or the heirs of the deceased victim with respect of the same matter for the tortuous act committed by the functionaries of the State. The quantum of compensation will, of course, depend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no strait jacket formula can be evolved in that behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for the established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under the public law jurisdiction is, in addition to the traditional remedies and not it derogation of them. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Court and paid by the State to redress the wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted against any amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil suit." 16. In the present case, it is clear that there was negligence on the part of the police personnel of Naharlagun Police Station in properly guarding the under trial prisoners, including the son of the petitioner which had led to his death. Accordingly, the family of the deceased under trial prisoner would be entitled to compensation. 17. In the present case, it is clear that there was negligence on the part of the police personnel of Naharlagun Police Station in properly guarding the under trial prisoners, including the son of the petitioner which had led to his death. Accordingly, the family of the deceased under trial prisoner would be entitled to compensation. 17. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of D. K. Basu (supra), had categorically laid down that claim in public law for compensation warrants unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty, the protection of which is guaranteed under the Constitution, is a claim based on strict liability and is in addition to the claim available in private laws for damages for tortious acts of the public servants. Public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. Award of compensation for established infringement of the indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitutions is remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interest shall be protected and preserved. Grant of compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India for the established violation or the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21, is an exercise of the Courts under the public law jurisdiction for penalizing the wrong doer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. 18. In view of the above position and also considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court applicable to the matter, this Court is constrained to hold that the dependents of the deceased under trial prisoner namely, Abhijit Deka alias Michael Deka, including the petitioner herein, who is his mother, are entitled to compensation for the wrongful loss of life of the son of the petitioner. 19. The question that would now arise is as to what would be the quantum of the amount of compensation. It is a settled position of law that the quantum of compensation, will, needless to say, depend upon the peculiar facts and no straight jacket formula can be evolved in that behalf. 20. 19. The question that would now arise is as to what would be the quantum of the amount of compensation. It is a settled position of law that the quantum of compensation, will, needless to say, depend upon the peculiar facts and no straight jacket formula can be evolved in that behalf. 20. In the writ petition, there is no material disclosed with regard to the profession in which the deceased was in. Rather, the only disclosure herein, is that he was arrested in connection with a criminal case. Having regard to the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation required to be received by the dependents of late Abhijit Deka alias Michael Deka be quantified at an amount of Rs. 300,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs). 21. The said amount of compensation shall be paid by the State respondents within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount of compensation so determined by this Court will carry interest @ 9% p.a., w.e.f. the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 22. At this point, it is to be noted that the respondent authorities would be at liberty to identify the dependents of late Abhijit Deka alias Michael Deka and release to such dependents the amount of compensation so determined by this Court. It is further provided that the compensation as determined herein above, being one so determined under public law constitution, the same will not preclude the petitioner and/or any other legal heir of late Abhijit Deka alias Michael Deka from taking any other legal action like institution of Civil Suit for damages etc., which may be lawfully available to them. 23 With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.