Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association V. State Of Assam And Another.
DATE OF DECISION: 24-01-1994
CITATION: 1994-(100)-CRLJ -2197 –SC; 1995-(SU3)-SCC -0736 -SC

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.Arts. 21 & 32 — Prisoners and under trial — Bar Association forwarded a letter containing allegation of torture by police resulting in death of the victim – Communication received from the Bar Association was ordered to be treated as a writ petition under art. 32 of the Constitution – Supreme Court directed the Director General of Police to inquire into the matter and forward a detailed report – Police report denying allegation of torture and indicating that assault on the deceased was by members of the public and not the police – Statement in the report of the Superintendent of Police that `The P.M. Report did not indicate any external injury over the dead body’ was found factually incorrect – Held, possibility of the police having caused injuries cannot be ruled out – CBI directed to make investigation in regard to murder of deceased – High- ranking officers show extra care while forwarding their comments to Supreme Court and not to mechanically forward the information collected thro — Ceiling on land – Calculation – While calculating the extent of 1961 (as amended by Act 21 of 1975) share which the members of a family unit are entitled to hold, the claim of the unmarried daughters to maintenance and marriage expenses are not required to be taken into account.
There is one thing more which needs to be noticed. Even the police have registered an offence u/s. 302, IPC, albeit against unknown members of the public. The story that the members of the public beat him raises doubts because in that case the wrath of the pubic would not have been towards the police and the Bar Association would not have taken up the cause. The medical examination report of 12-3-1993 is not forthcoming nor is the laboratory report on the viscera available. The fact that the deceased was beaten up is not in doubt. He had fractured a bone. In the circumstances even if it is believed that he died of cardiac failure there can be no doubt that those who caused the The possibility of the police having caused injuries cannot be ruled out altogether. Since the local police at the highest level have taken a stand that the assault on the deceased was by members of the public and not the police after the apprehension of the deceased it is futile to expect an independent and wholly objective investigation by the State police. Even otherwise, the people will have little confidence in the investigation no matter how honest and objective the investigation be. In the circumstances, it is most appropriate that the investigation of the crime in regard to the murder of the deceased should be undertaken by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In doing so, the CBI will bear in mind the allegation of the wife and other relations of the deceased that he died on account of the beating given to him after his apprehension on 9-3-1993, without being influenced by the fact that in the FIR, it is alleged that the assault was by the members of the public.
CBI directed to make investigation in regard to murder of deceased.

Punjab And Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh Through Its Secretary, Appellant V. State Of Punjab And Others, Respondents.
DATE OF DECISION: 07-12-1993
CITATION(S) :

1994-(001)-SCC -0616 -SC
1994-(081)-AIR -1023 -SC
1994-(100)-CRLJ -1368 -SC
On January 25, 1993, Kulwant Singh, Advocate, practising at the District Courts, Ropar, Punjab, his wife and a child aged about two years were abducted and murdered by Punjab police. The lawyer fraternity in general and the advocates practising at the High Court and the District Courts in the States of Punjab, Haryana, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh were not satisfied with the police investigation. The Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association (Bar Association) demanded a judicial inquiry into the occurrence by a sitting Judge of the High Court or a District Judge or a Vigilance Judge belonging to the higher judiciary. Their demand, having not been acceded to by the State Government, the Bar Association went on indefinite strike with effect from February 6, 1993. Later on, the District Bar Associations in the States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh also went on strike thereby stopping the functioning of the courts throughout the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
One Suresh Kumar, son of Shri Som Prakash, resident of Ambala (Haryana) filed a Civil Writ before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in public interest. The law points and the prayers in the said writ petition were as under:
(I) Whether it is in the interest of the respondent that doubts regarding mystery surrounding gruesome murder be unearthed and the truth brought out by judicial inquiry ?
(II) Whether the interest of justice requires that a judicial inquiry be conducted by a sitting Judge of the High Court or a District Judge or a Vigilance Judge especially when the interests of the litigating masses are suffering ?
A Division Bench of the High Court issued notice of motion to the Bar Association of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. Later on the Petitioner withdrew the said petition and the High Court allowed the same to be dismissed as withdrawn. An appeal by way of special leave was filed by the Bar Association against the five-Judge Bench judgment of the High Court.
Without going into the question as to whether the writ petition before the High Court was for bringing an end to the lawyers strike or to appoint an independent inquiry-agency to probe into the disappearance and alleged murder of Kulwant Singh, Advocate and his family, the Supreme Court held that,”Be that as it may the fact remains that the five-Judge Bench of the High Court was seized of the matter wherein the issues regarding the abduction and alleged murder of Kulwant Singh, Advocate and his family were raised before it. The report of the “Action Committee” of the Bar Association, statements recorded by the police including that of Harpreet Singh @ Lucky and other relevant documents were before the High Court. The High Court was wholly unjustified in closing its eyes and ears to the controversy which had shocked the lawyer fraternity in the region. For the reasons best known to it, the High Court became wholly oblivious to the patent facts on the record and failed to perform the duty entrusted to it under the Constitution. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the least the High Court could have done in this case was to have directed an independent investigation/inquiry into the mysterious and most tragic abduction and alleged murder of Kulwant Singh, Advocate and his family.”
In the facts and circumstances of the case, to do complete justice in the matter and to instil confidence in the public mind the Supreme Court felt it necessary to have fresh investigation in the case through Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association, Appellant; V. State Of Punjab And Others, Respondents.
DATE of DECISION : 10-05-1996
CITATION(S) : 1996-(004)-SCC -0742 -SC

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.ART. 136 AND 142 –Abduction and alleged murder of K, Advocate, his wife and their two-year-old child – Final report submitted by C.B.I. indicating involvement of some police officers in murder – It is correct that the CBI investigation reveals circumstances which do point a finger of suspicion at the police officers but whether the circumstances are sufficient to prosecute the said police officer is a matter for the consideration of the Designated Court which is seized of the trial – It has taken a mysterious and an extremely shocking turn by the finding of the CBI that H has been falsely implicated in the case – State Government directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 (two lakhs) to H as compensation for the sufferings caused to him because of the false implication in the case in particular his remaining in jail for a long period – In case of conviction of the police officers, the amount of compensation paid to H should be recovered from them personally – State Government further directed to take up the question of grant of sanction under sec. 197, Criminal Procedure Code for the prosecution of the police officers immediately.
State Government through Secretary to Government, Home Department directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 (ten lakhs) to the parents (father and mother) of state Advocate as compensation. The payment shall be made within two months of the receipt of this order. The police officers falsely implicated H in the case. It is directed that he be released from jail forthwith. State Government State Government directed to pay a sum of Rs 2,00,000 (two lakhs) to H as compensation for the sufferings caused to him because of the false implication in the case in particular his remaining in jail for a long period. The amount of compensation shall be paid within two months of the receipt of this order. The Supreme Court further direct the Home Secretary, State of Punjab to provide security, if he considers it necessary, to H. The Supreme Court further direct that in case of conviction of the police officers, the amount of compensation paid to H should be recovered from them personally. The Supreme Court the trial from the Designated Court at Ropar to the Designated Court at Chandigarh. The CBI shall file the necessary challan in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial Court at Chandigarh. The Supreme Court direct the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably within six months of its commencement. The Supreme Court directs the State Government further directed to take up the question of grant of sanction under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code for the prosecution of the police officers immediately.
The Supreme Court by the earlier order dated 7-12-1993 directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate into the mysterious and most tragic abduction and alleged murder of Kulwant Singh, Advocate, his wife and their two-year-old child.
The CBI submitted the final report to this Court on 7-3-1996 whereunder following actions have been recommended :
“(i) Harpreet Singh @ Lucky s/o Gurmit Singh Saini, r/o Village Bahadurpur, who is presently facing trail in case FIR No. 10/93 of PS Sadar, Ropar in the Designated Court, Nabha has been falsely implicated in the case.
(ii) SI Avindervir Singh, ASI Darshan Singh, Inspector Balwant Singh and DSP Jaspal Singh are prima facie responsible for the false implication of Harpreet Singh @ Lucky in the aforesaid case and are liable for prosecution for offences under Sections 193, 194, 211 and 218 IPC.
(iii) The State Government of Punjab is to be requested for taking suitable action against Shri Sanjiv Gupta, DIG, Punjab Police for his lack of supervision.”
Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate, appearing for the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association has vehemently contended that there is sufficient material on the record to prosecute the police officers for the abduction and murder of Kulwant Singh, Advocate and his family. He has invited our attention to the following paragraphs from the CBI report :
Now the question arises, if Harpreet Singh @ Lucky had not abducted and murdered Kulwant Singh, Advocate and his family, then what happened to them. The evidence of the family members of Kulwant Singh, Advocate is there to show that Kulwant Singh had talked to PS City, Ropar on telephone at about 9.30 p.m. on 25-1-1993 and left the house along with his wife and son to the said police station for bringing Manjit Kaur and her son who were reportedly detained by the police. It is also in their evidence that he left the house in his Maruti Car No. DAQ-3804. Certain shopkeepers/vendors falling en route from the house of Kulwant Singh to PS City Ropar were examined but nobody confirmed that they had seen Kulwant Singh, Advocate and his family going to PS City, Ropar in his Maruti car. It is a fact that Manjit Kaur and her son were there in PS City, Ropar on 25-1-1993 night, although she and her son are denying it. Thus, the only persons who could enlighten us about the visit of Kulwant Singh to PS City, Ropar are either the police personnel posted in the PS City, Ropar or Manjit Kaur and her son. Several police personnel have been examined but they have denied that Advocate Kulwant Singh had visited the police station that night. They have also denied about the detention of Smt. Manjit Kaur or her son in the police station. Manjit Kaur and her son Amarjit Singh @ Sonu, who are the only key witnesses in this case, have also changed their versions and denied having been ever detained by the police in the PS City, Ropar. Smt. Manjit Kaur is now maintaining that she was never detained by the police and she has also made a statement before the Special Magistrate, Patiala on 3-7-1995 under Section 164 CrPC stating therein that she was not detained by the police during 25-1-1993 to 27-1-1993. Her eldest son Inderjit Singh @ Lucky has been appointed as a Special Police Officer by Ropar Police w.e.f. 21-8-1994 without taking any application from him and he is working in PS Sadar, Ropar under Shri Avindervir Singh, SHO. Village Budha Bhora to which Smt. Manjit Kaur belongs falls under the jurisdiction of PS Sadar, Ropar. It appears that the version of Manjit Kaur and her son is not reliable and Manjit Kaur seems to have made the statement before the Magistrate under certain extraneous pressure.
A very significant fact that remains unexplained is the recovery of the car by the police from the Bhakra Canal on 12-2-1993. If Lucky was innocent and was not involved in the crime, he could not have known where the car was. It is in the evidence of family members of Kulwant Singh that Kulwant Singh and his family had gone to PS City, Ropar on 25-1-1993 in the said car allegedly recovered from Bhakra Canal on 12-2-1993. As per the records prepared by Avindervir Singh, SHO, he had recovered this car at the instance of Harpreet Singh @ Lucky. Now the question arises as to how he could recover the car if Lucky was innocent and was not involved in the crime. Thus, the recovery of the car by the police, false implication of Harpreet Singh @ Lucky, subsequent payment of money to his father under a false name showing him as an SPO and appointment of Inderjit Singh @ Lucky, as an SPO during the investigation of this case possibly to keep a control on him, his mother Manjit Kaur and his brother Amarjit Singh @ Sonu and subsequent denial by Manjit Kaur and her son about their detention by the police does point the finger of suspicion at the police but these circumstances are not clinching in nature.
The recovery of the car of Advocate Kulwant Singh was made by SI Avindervir Singh which obviously could have been done on the basis of certain information available with him which shows his personal knowledge about the occurrence. Otherwise he could not have known that the car was thrown into the canal. This is a circumstance against Avindervir Singh. The dead bodies of Kulwant Singh, Advocate and his family members could not be recovered in spite of our best efforts. The precise sequence of events after Advocate Kulwant Singh and his family left their house on the night of 25-1-1993 could also not be established due to the non-cooperation of Smt. Manjit Kaur and her son Amarjit Singh @ Sonu who were the key witnesses in this case. Assuming that Advocate Kulwant Singh and his family, were killed, there is no evidence or record regarding the modus.
We have collected adequate evidence to suggest that the police version to the effect that Kulwant Singh and his family members were killed by Harpreet Singh @ Lucky, is not correct. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that Lucky has not killed Kulwant Singh and his family members. The confession of Lucky has been falsely recorded. The recovery of the car under Section 27 Evidence Act has been falsely shown.
However, the investigation has not been able to bring forth any evidence to reveal the persons who have committed the act of killing of Kulwant Singh and his family members. Their dead bodies have not been found in spite of our best efforts. There is no other evidence which may connect any of the suspect police officers with the kidnapping/killing, howsoever strong the suspicion may be.”
It is no doubt correct that the CBI investigation reveals circumstances which do point a finger of suspicion at the police officers but whether the circumstances are sufficient to prosecute them for the abduction and murder of Kulwant Singh and his family is a matter for the consideration of the Designated Court which is seized of the trial. We do not wish to go into this question. The appellant before us and the prosecutor shall be at liberty to argue before the trial court that the material collected by the CBI including its report show that the police officers are prima facie responsible for the abduction and murder of Kulwant Singh and his family and are liable for prosecution for offences under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
The abduction and murder of Kulwant Singh and his family was the most heinous crime against humanity. It has taken a mysterious and an extremely shocking turn by the finding of the CBI that Harpreet Singh @ Lucky has been falsely implicated in the case. The CBI report indicates that under pressure from the police and finding no other alternative to save his life he agreed to their proposal to accept the murder of Kulwant Singh and his family members. Mr. Navkiran Singh has rightly contended that the least this Court can do at this stage is to compensate the old parents of Kulwant Singh. J.S. Verma, J. speaking for this Court in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa [(1993) 2 SCC 746 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 527] held as under : (SCC pp. 762-64, paras 17-21)
“It follows that ‘a claim in public law for compensation’ for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the Constitution, is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection of such rights, and such a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to constitutional remedy provided for the enforcement of a fundamental right is ‘distinct from, and in addition to, the remedy in private law for damages for the tort’ resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right. 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, when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State or its servants in the purported exercise of their powers, and enforcement of the fundamental right is claimed by resort to the remedy in public law under the Constitution by recourse to Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. This is what was indicated in Rudul Sah [Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 798] and is the basis of the subsequent decisions in which compensation was awarded under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, for contravention of fundamental rights.
* * *
We respectfully concur with the view that the court is not helpless and the wide powers given to this Court by Article 32, which itself is a fundamental right, imposes a constitutional obligation on this Court to forge such new tools, which may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution, which enable the award of monetary compensation in appropriate cases, where that is the only mode of redress available. The power available to this Court under Article 142 is also an enabling provision in this behalf. The contrary view would not merely render the court powerless and the constitutional guarantee a mirage, but may, in certain situations, be an incentive to extinguish life, if for the extreme contravention the court is powerless to grant any relief against the State, except by punishment of the wrongdoer for the resulting offence, and recovery of damages under private law, by the ordinary process. If the guarantee that deprivation of life and personal liberty cannot be made except in accordance with law, is to be real, the enforcement of the right in case of every contravention must also be possible in the constitutional scheme, the mode of redress being that which is appropriate in the facts of each case. This remedy in public law has to be more readily available when invoked by the have-nots, who are not possessed of the wherewithal for enforcement of their rights in private law, even though its exercise is to be tempered by judicial restraint to avoid circumvention of private law remedies, where more appropriate.
We may also refer to Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 which indicates that an enforceable right to compensation is not alien to the concept of enforcement of a guaranteed right. Article 9(5) reads as under :
‘Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.'”
We direct the Punjab Government through Secretary to Government, Home Department to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 (ten lakhs) to the parents (father and mother) of Kulwant Singh, Advocate as compensation. The payment shall be made within two months of the receipt of this order.
Regarding Harpreet Singh @ Lucky the CBI reached the following conclusion :
“Facts emerging from the investigation lead us unequivocally and decisively to conclude that Harpreet Singh @ Lucky is not responsible for the abduction or murder of Kulwant Singh, Advocate and his family.”
The police officers falsely implicated Harpreet Singh @ Lucky in the case. We direct that he be released from jail forthwith. We further direct the Punjab Government through Secretary to Government, Home Department to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 (two lakhs) to Harpreet Singh @ Lucky as compensation for the sufferings caused to him because of the false implication in the case in particular his remaining in jail for a long period. The amount of compensation shall be paid within two months of the receipt of this order. We further direct the Home Secretary, State of Punjab to provide security, if he considers it necessary, to Harpreet @ Lucky. We further direct that in the event of conviction of the police officers, the amount of compensation paid to Harpreet @ Lucky shall be recovered from them personally.
We transfer the trial from the Designated Court at Ropar to the Designated Court at Chandigarh. The CBI shall file the necessary challan in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial court at Chandigarh. We direct the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably within six months of its commencement. We direct the State of Punjab through the Home Secretary or any other appropriate authority to take up the question of grant of sanction under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code for the prosecution of the police officers immediately and take a decision in this respect within one month of the receipt of this order.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances highlighted by the CBI in its report it would be in the interest of justice to suspend the police officers during the course of the trial. We therefore, direct the Home Secretary, State of Punjab to take appropriate action in this respect. We accept the recommendation of the CBI regarding Shri Sanjiv Gupta, DIG, Punjab Police and direct the Government of Punjab through Secretary to Government, Punjab to take suitable action against Shri Gupta in the light of the findings of the CBI.
Peoples’ Union For Democratic Rights, Petitioner V. State Of Bihar And Others, Respondents.
DATE OF DECISION: 19-12-1986
CITATION(S) : 1987-(093)-CRLJ -0528 -SC
On 19th April, 1986, 600 to 700 poor peasants and landless people mostly belonging to the backward classes had collected for holding a peaceful meeting within the compound of Gandhi library in Arwal, a place within the District of Gaya in the State of Bihar. Without any previous warning by the police or any provocation on the part of the people who had so collected, the Superintendent of Police, reached the spot with police force, surrounded the gathering and opened fire as a result of which several people were injured and at least 21 persons including children died. The petitioner alleged that separate unofficial inquiries have been held into the atrocity and the reports indicated that the number of deaths was much more that 21 and there was no justification for the firing. It appears that there was a dispute relating to possession of 26 decimals of low lying land adjacent to the canal at Arwal and of such dispute members of a rich Rajak family on one side and members of nine poor families on the other were parties. Even though several people died and many more were injured by the ruthless and unwarranted firing resorted to by the police, to give a cover to the atrocities, the police started a false case implicated several innocent people including even some of the people who had been killed in the firing.
The incident drew a lot of publicity and attention both within the State as also outside.
There was no dispute that as a result of the police firing 21 people died and several others were injured. The heirs and relations of a few of the dead people had been compensated by the State of the tune of Rupees ten thousand as found from the record. No Justification has been indicated as to why the said compensation has not been given in every case of death or injury. It is a normal feature of which judicial notice can be taken that when such unfortunate consequences emerge even in police firing, the state comes forward to give compensation. Ordinarily in the case of death compensation of Rupees twenty thousand is paid but there was no reason as to why the quantum of compensation was limited to rupees ten thousand in this case. The Court held that ‘we may not be taken to suggest that in the case of death the liability of the wrong-doer is absolved when compensation of Rupees twenty thousand is paid. But as a working principle and for convenience and with a view to rehabilitating the dependents of the deceased such compensation is being paid. We direct that without prejudice to any just claim for compensation that may be advanced by the relations of the victims who have dies or by the injured persons themselves, for every case of death compensation of Rupees twenty thousand and for every injured person compensation of Rupees five thousand shall be paid. Where some compensation has already been paid, the same may be adjusted when the amount now directed is being paid.

Mohammad Sultan Mir, Petitioner V. State Of J. & K. And Others, Respondents.
DATE OF DECISION: 27-06-2000
CITATION(S) : 2001-(107)-CRLJ -0301 -J&K
Constitution of India Art 226 – Habeas Corpus petition – as per the enquiry report brother of the petitioner was arrested by the BSF personnel while on his way to his place of duty as a teacher and has disappeared since then – prayer to release the detenu and constitute magisterial inquiry and to prosecute the respondents under Sec 302 read with Sec 149 RPC and direct them to pay a compensation of Rs. one crore to the family of the detenu – investigations are already in progress – detenu has not been released – as held by various decisions of the SC State is under a legal obligation to compensate the family of the deceased for the pain and sufferings occasioned by custodial death of the deceased – relying on various decisions and totality of facts and circumstances amount of Rs. one lakh is awarded as just and proper compensation to be paid by the respondents to the family of the deceased. Petition is allowed.
Habeas Corpus Petition: On the basis of material, and inquiry conducted by the CJM the brother of the petitioner was arrested by the BSF personnel while on his way to his place of duty as a teacher in a higher secondary school and from then on he had disappeared. The petitioner prayed for constituting Magisterial inquiry and prosecuting the respondents under Sec 302 read with Sec 149 RPC and also to direct the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs. one crore to the family of the detenu. Case of disappearance has been registered and investigations are already in progress. It being a case of arrest and custodial disappearance, the Union of India and the BSF personnel are under legal obligation to compensate the family for the pain and sufferings occasioned by loss of liberty and disappearance of their bread earner. Under public law, the Union and its instrumentality are under legal duty to safeguard the life and liberty of the individuals and protect its citizens from its wrong doings which may occasionally result in death of the citizen. There are a no. of decisions of the SC which go in favour of awarding compensation to the family of the deceased who has become a victim of custodial violence. With regard to quantum of compensation details about family strength and other relevant facts having a bearing on the question of award of compensation are quite sketchy. Taking into consideration the various decisions and totality of facts and circumstances the amount of Rs. one lakh is awarded as just and proper compensation to be paid by the Union of India and BSF, to the family of the deceased. Petition allowed.

Pratul Kumar Sinha, Petitioner V. State Of Bihar And Another, Respondents.
DATE OFDECISION:02-05-1994
CITATION(S) : 1994-(SU3)-SCC -0100 -SC
Arts.32 & 21 — Police atrocities — Resulted in the death of three persons – Direction issued that an ex gratia payment of Rs. 25,000 be made to widow of each deceased person – State Govt. may recover this amount from tort-feasors. Since death of the persons resulted due to police atrocities hence Supreme Court directed to make payment of ex gratia of Rs. 25,000 to each widow of deceased persons.

Peoples’ Union For Democratic Rights and Another V. Police Commissioner, Delhi Police.
DATE OF DECISION: 13-01-1989
CITATION(S) : 1989-(004)-SCC -0730 -SC
JUDGE(S) :

It was an unfortunate case where the police collected poor people and took them to the police station for doing some work. They were asked to work without labour charges. On demand they were beaten and it appears that one of them Ram Swaroop succumbed to the injuries and the body has also been disposed of. Petitioner 2 Patasi, as alleged, was also stripped of her clothes and was thrashed in the police station. The other eight persons namely (1) Dandwa (2) Ram Prasad (3) Jaipal (4) Mahavir (5) Kannu (6) Munsjia (7) Hukka and (8) Pratap were also beaten up rather than they should have been paid for the work they did at the police station.
The Deputy Commissioner of Police, accepted the atrocity committed by the Police Officers and some action was also taken and Station House Officer was arrested. The matter was being investigated for criminal prosecution. The Court while holding that ‘It is unfortunate that the Police to whom the citizen can approach for protection and help acted in such a manner, directed that the family of Ram Swaroop who is dead will be paid Rs. 50,000 as compensation and Patasi who were stripped of her clothes at the Police station, shall be paid Rs. 500 as compensation and the 8 other persons who were take in the police station without being paid for their work will be paid Rs. 25 each. It was also directed that after investigation and inquiry officers who were found guilty, the amount paid as compensation or part thereof may be recovered from those persons out of their salaries after giving them opportunity to show cause.

Nilabati Behera Alias Lalita Behera (Through The Supreme Court Legal And Committee), Petitioner V. State Of Orissa And Others, Respondents.
DATE OF DECISION: 24-03-1993
CITATION(S) :

1993-(002)-SCC -0746 -SC
1993-(080)-AIR -1960 -SC
1993-(099)-CRLJ -2899 -SC
Constitution of India – Arts. 32, 142, 226 & 300 – Criminal Procedure code, 1973 – Sec. 357(5) – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 – Art. 9(5) – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sec. 106 – Award of compensation from Public Law Proceedings – Different from private law proceedings – Custodial death – Respondents liable for compensation to deceased’s mother (Petitioner), for custodial death – Principle which justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State or its servants in the purported exercise of their powers, and enforcement of the fundamental right is claimed by resort to the remedy in public law under the Constitution by recourse of arts. 32 & 226 – The Court is not helpless and wide powers given to Supreme Court by art. 32, which itself is fundamental right, imposes a constitutional obligation on Court to forge such new tools, which may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed in Constitution, which enable award of monetary compensation in appropriate cases, where that is only mode of redress available – Power available to the Supreme Court under art. 142 is also enabling provision in this behalf – Death in police custody established – Having regard to deceased aged and monthly income between Rs. 1200 to Rs. 1500 – Respondent State is directed to pay the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 to the petitioner and further sum of Rs. 10,000 as costs to be paid to Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee – Award of compensation in proceeding would be taken into account for adjustment, in the event of any other proceeding taken by the petitioner for recovery of compensation on the same ground, so that the amount to this extent is not recovered by the petitioner twice over
The deceased 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. A total amount of Rs. 1,50,000 would be appropriate as compensation, to be awarded to the petitioner in the present case. Count 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 taken by the petitioner for recovery of 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 S. 357(5) CrPC and S. 141(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, Court direct the respondent State of Orissa to pay the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 to the petitioner and a further sum of Rs. 10,000 as costs to be paid to the Supreme Court legal Aid Committee. The mode of payment of Rs. 1,50,000 to petitioner would be, by making a term deposit of that amount in a schedule bank in the petitioner’s name for a period of three years, during which she would receive only the interest payable thereon, the principal amount being payable to her on expiry of the term. The Collector of the District will take the necessary steps in this behalf, and report compliance to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within three months.
Supreme Court directed to State to pay the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 to the petitioner and a further sum of Rs. 10,000 as costs to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee.
Constitution of India – Arts. 32 & 142 – Remedy in public law – Principle which justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State or its servants in the purported exercise of their powers, and enforcement of the fundamental right is claimed by resort to the remedy in public law under the Constitution by recourse to arts. 32 & 226
The Court is not helpless and the wide powers given to this Court by art. 132, which itself is a fundamental right, imposes a constitutional obligation on Supreme Court to forge such new tools, which may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution, Which enable the award of monetary compensation in appropriate cases, where that is the only mode of redress available. The power available to Supreme Court under art. 142 is also an enabling provision in this behalf. The Contrary view would not merely render the Court powerless and the constitutional guarantee a mirage, but may, in certain situations, be an incentive to extinguish life, if for the extreme contravention the Court is powerless to grant any relief against the State, except by punishment of the wrongdoer for the resulting offence, and recovery of damages under private law, by the ordinary process. If the guarantee that deprivation of life and personal liberty cannot be made except in accordance with law, is to be real, the enforcement of the right in case of every contravention must also be possible in the constitutional scheme, the mode of redress being that which is appropriate in the facts of each case. This remedy in public law has to be more readily available when invoked by the have-nots, who are not possessed of the wherewithal for enforcement of their rights in private law, even though its exercise is to be tempered by judicial restraint to avoid circumvention of private law remedies, where more appropriate.
The remedy in public law has to be more readily available when invoked by the have-nots, who are not possessed of the wherewithal for enforcement of their rights in private law, even though its exercise is to be tempered by judicial restraint to avoid circumvention of private law remedies, where more appropriate.
Constitution of India – Arts. 32 & 226 – Remedy in public law proceedings – The burden is, clearly on the respondents to explain how the deceased sustained those injuries which caused his death – Unless a plausible explanation is given by the respondents which is consistent with their innocence, the obvious inference is that the fatal injuries were inflicted on the deceased in police custody resulting in his death, for which the respondents are responsible and liable
Enforcement of the constitutional right and grant of redress embraces award of compensation as part of the legal consequences of its contravention. Award of compensation in a proceeding under art. 32 by Supreme Court or by the High Court under art. 226 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law, base on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence in private law in an action based on tort.’A claim in public law for compensation’ for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the Constitution, is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection of such rights, and such a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a constitutional remedy provided for the enforcement of a fundamental right is ‘distinct from, and in addition to, the remedy in private law for damages for the tort’ resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right. 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, when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State or its servants in the purported exercise of their powers, and enforcement of the fundamental right is claimed by resort to the remedy in public law under the Constitution by recourse to arts. 32 & 226 of the Constitution. This is what was indicated in Rudul Sah and is the basis of the subsequent decisions in which compensation was awarded under arts. 32 & 226 of the Constitution, for contravention of fundamental rights. Certain further observations therein adverted to earlier, which may tend to minimise the effect of the principle indicated therein, do not really detract from that principle. This is how the decisions of Supreme Court in Rudul Sah and others in that line have to be understood and Kasturilal distinguished therefrom.
Award of compensation in a proceeding under art. 32 by Supreme Court or by the High Court under art. 226 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law, based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence in private law in an action based on tort.
Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Convicts, prisoners or undertrials – Their fundamental rights under art. 21 – Obligation of State to ensure that there is no infringement of the indefeasible rights of a citizen to life, except in accordance with procedure established by law, while the citizen is in its custody
Convicts, prisoners or undertrials are not denuded of their fundamental rights under art. 21 and it is only such restrictions, as are permitted by law, which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental right by such persons. It is an obligation of the State to ensure that there is no infringement of the indefeasible rights of a citizen to life, except in accordance with law, while the citizen is in its custody. His liberty is in the very nature of things circumscribed by the very fact of his confinement and therefore his interest in the limited liberty left to him is rather precious. The duty of care on the part of the State is strict and admits of no exceptions. The wrongdoer is accountable and the State is responsible if the person in custody of the police is deprived of his life except according to the procedure established by law. The defence of “sovereign immunity” in such cases is not available to the State. Adverting to the grant of relief to the heirs of a victim of custodial death for the infraction or invasion of his rights guaranteed under art. 21 of the Constitution of India, it is not always enough to relegate him to the ordinary remedy of a civil suit to claim damages for the tortious act of the State as that remedy in private law indeed is available to the aggrieved party. The citizen complaining of the infringement of the indefeasible right under art. 21 of the Constitution cannot be told that for the established violation of the fundamental right to life, he cannot get any relief under the public law by the Courts exercising writ jurisdiction. The primary source of the public law proceedings stems from the prerogative writs and the Courts have, therefore, to evolve ‘new tools’ to give relief in public law by moulding it according to the situation with a view to preserve and protect the Rule of Law. The old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to the remedies available in civil law limits the role of the Courts too much as protector and guarantor of the indefeasible rights of the citizens. The Courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the Courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations.
It is an obligation of the State to ensure that there is no infringement of the indefeasible rights of a citizen to life, except in accordance with law, while the citizen is in its custody.
Penal Code, 1860 – Sec. 302 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sec. 45 – Deceased taken in police custody and found dead next day on railway track without being released from custody – Burden clearly on respondents (State) to explain how deceased sustained those injuries which caused his death – Respondent’s plea that deceased escaped from police custody – Opinion of Professor and Head of Deptt. of Forensic Medicine, who not examined as witness during inquiry – Being cryptic and based on conjectures, not acceptable – Deceased in police custody resulting in his death for which respondent are responsible and liable
The burden is, clearly on the respondents to explain how the deceased sustained those injuries which caused his death. Unless a plausible explanation is given by the respondents which is consistent with their innocence, the obvious inference is that the fatal injuries were inflicted on the deceased in police custody resulting in his death, for which the respondents are responsible and liable.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sec. 176 – Custodial death – Inquiry contemplated independently by magistrate and not jointly with police officer when role of police officer itself matter of inquiry – Joint inquiry report in case cannot made u/s. 176 CrPC and cannot be relied on as statutory report relating to cause of death
Joint inquiry report is stated to have been not made been u/s.176 CrPC and was not strongly relied on by the Additional Solicitor General as a statutory report relating to the cause of death.
An inquiry u/s. 176 CrPC is contemplated independently by a Magistrate and not jointly with a police officer when the role of the police officers itself is a matter of inquiry.