Criminal Writ Petition No. 1077 of 2012

8th July, 2013

Petitioner Counsel: Smt. M. R. JAMDHADE
Respondent Counsel: Smt. A.V. GONDHALEKAR

Cases Cited:
Rohtash Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2013 ALL SCR 1208=Cri. Appeal No. 306/2013 [Para 6]
Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera Vs. State of Orissa & Ors., 2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 36=1993 Cri. L.J. 2899 [Para 6,11,12]
Gopichand S/o Chandrabhan Patil & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 3491 [Para 6,11]
Smt. Rekha Janardhan Kale, 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 683 [Para 6]

JUDGMENT

A. I. S. CHEEMA, J. :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Present Writ Petition has been filed by Kewalbai W/o Madhavrao Ghorband, the mother of one Sandeep, who met with custodial death, for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3. The petitioner claims that :-

(a)Petitioner's son was in custody and lodged in Sub Jail, Kandhar, Dist. Nanded. Superintendent of Sub Jail, Kandhar (Respondent No.4) is under supervisory authority of Superintendent of Central Jail, Nanded (Respondent No. 3). At the Sub Jail, Kandhar one constable Pandit Manikrao Marwade by his Service Rifle of 303, in the night of 02.02.2011 shot her son Sandeep. Petitioner was having two sons and one daughter. Her husband died long back. (Deceased) Sandeep was the earning member of the family. He was arrested in 2011 for some charges by the Local Police and thus, he was sent in custody to Respondent No.4. Petitioner was informed on 03.02.2011 that her son was shot by on duty constable Pandit Manikrao Marwade in the Jail lockup and that, he had died on the spot. There were various other inmates in the lockup. Police constable Pandit at about 11.30 p.m. to 12.00 midnight opened the lockup and shot Sandeep and thereafter shot himself and committed suicide. Sub-Inspector of Police Station, Kandhar lodged F.I.R. of the incident. Investigation has been conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police and charge-sheet under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was submitted to Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kandhar and "A" Abetted Summary was sought, which has been granted on 30.08.2011.

(b)It is claimed that due to the custodial death of Sandeep, petitioner and her family is suffering mental agony and facing starvation. She filed representation dated 12.07.2012 to Superintendent of Police, Nanded (Respondent No.2) for grant of compensation and also requested for conducting enquiry into the custodial death. It is the duty of the State to protect life and personal liberty of every citizen and State is vicariously liable for custodial death for carelessness of Respondent No.4. The constitutional and human rights have been violated and thus claim for compensation, of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. Police Inspector, Kandhar, Mr. Chandrashekhar Tukaram Chaudhari has filed affidavit dated 20.02.2013, and further affidavit dated 22.04.2013. In the affidavit, it is mentioned that on the basis of information available with Respondents, the fact regarding the occurrence of incident is admitted. Sandeep was arrested and remanded in magisterial custody at Sub Prison, Kandhar in a crime and constable Pandit Manikrao Marwade did shoot Sandeep on 02.02.2011. Sandeep was arrogant in nature and addicted to drinks. The incident occurred due to arrogant nature and misbehaviour of Sandeep. First Information Report was lodged on 03.02.2011 and investigation was done by SDPO Kandhar, Gita Chavan and later on same has been handed over to C.I.D. Nanded. The incident occurred due to sudden and grave provocation and is an individual act of Police Constable which behaviour was not expected by the Superior authorities. Theory of vicarious liability does not apply. It is true that it is the duty of Department to protect life and personal liberty. However, Sandeep was threatened and abused constable Marwade and the incident took place. Sandeep is responsible for the incident. Sandeep was of criminal nature and was remanded to magisterial custody in crime No. 90/2009 under Sections 307, 452, 294, 354, 336, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which crime was registered at Police Station Loha, Dist. Nanded. Sandeep was arrogant. There were other five inmates in the room and there was no reason for the constable to shoot only Sandeep.

In the Additional Affidavit dated 22.04.2013, Police Inspector Chandrashekhar has replied to the contents of the Petition by claiming that the investigation had been handed over to C.I.D. Nanded. After proper investigation, the concerned Authority submitted Final Report as "A" Summary bearing No. 58/2011 dated 10.10.2011. Sandeep was 26 years old and unmarried. He was agriculturist. Petitioner Kewalbai is his mother. Sandeep is survived by another brother Rameshwar, aged 17 years and sister who is already married. Family has three acres of dry crop land. Reference is made to Government Resolution dated 04.07.2011 dealing with compensation required to be given to the legal heirs of the deceased if death takes place in custody. Reference is also made to Government Resolution dated 23.04.2012 relating to measures suggested for avoiding custodial death. The legal heirs can fight their claim in Civil Court. The deponent has mentioned that as per Government Resolutions suitable orders may be passed.

5. Perusal of copy of F.I.R. filed shows that it was registered on 03.02.2011 at 6.00 A.M. Police Sub Inspector Pandu Lokhande filed F.I.R. claiming that on 03.02.2011 at 00.45 hours for "Nakabandhi" checking he had gone to Sub Jail Kandhar and at that time noticed constable Marwade Batch No. 547 lying in pool of blood with his Service Rifle between his legs and there was no other police official at the Sub Jail. He immediately came to the Police Station, Kandhar and was taking entry in Diary when Police Head Constable Panchal came there and informed that constable Marwade had shot accused (Sandeep) Ghorband and then shot himself and committed suicide. The other accused persons in the Sub Jail had gone to the Police Line and Head Constable Jadhav and Police Constable Shaikh Mubarak had taken them back to the Sub Jail. P.S.I. Pandu enquired from Head Constable Jadhav and Police Constable Shaikh Mubarak and came to know about the incident as told to them by other accused of the Sub Jail who had run up to them, as the door was open. P.S.I. inspected the Sub Jail. He noticed that Sandeep was lying dead as he had been shot in the chest. The other accused of Sub Jail were (i) Udhav Dadarao Gaikwad, (ii) Prakash Dadarao Ladekar, (iii) Prakash Govindrao Lokhande, (iv) Govindrao Shamrao Lokhande and (v) Gautam Dhondiba Waghmare. These persons informed the P.S.I. that when they got up due to noise, they noticed that accused Ghorband was lying dead and when they came out, they noticed that constable Marwade was also lying on the floor with blood flowing from his head and so they had all run away to the Police colony and informed the Head Constable Jadhav and constable Shaikh Mubarak. F.I.R. mentions that around 23.30 to 24.00 hours the incident had taken place and before the incident Sandeep Ghorband was asking for mobile from Police Constable and there was exchange of abuse. The information was given on phone to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gita Chavan and the offence was being registered against Police Constable Pandit Manikrao Marwade under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/205 of the Arms Act.

Copy of the charge-sheet - Final Report, under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure records that the offence was enquired into by Deputy Superintendent of Police Mrs. Geeta Chavan. Inquest panchanama was done at 7.50 in the morning of 03.02.2011. Postmortem was also conducted. Eõõxamination of Viscera of Sandeep revealed that he had fire arm injury on chest and there was also evidence of alcohol consumption. In such final report submitted to Judicial Magistrate, First Class, "A" Abetted Summary was sought. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kandhar appears to have issued "A" Abetted Summary on 30.08.2011 on Final Report as above.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned Advocate for petitioner has argued that death of son of petitioner took place while he was in custody and the State is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Reliance is placed on unreported judgment in the matter of "Rohtash Kumar V/s State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 306/2013) : [2013 ALL SCR 1208]" decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to claim that in that matter the victim suffered death in a fake encounter and Hon'ble Supreme Court gave compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The learned Advocate has further placed reliance on the leading case on the subject in the matter of "Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera V/s State of Orissa and others" reported in 1993 Criminal Law Journal 2899 : [2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 36]. Reference is also made to the judgments of this Court in the matters of "Gopichand S/o Chandrabhan Patil and others V/s State of Maharashtra and others" reported in 2011 All M.R. (Cri) 3491 and "Smt. Rekha Janardhan Kale" reported in 2013 All M.R. (Cri) 683. Relying on these judgments, the Advocate claimed that the petitioner is entitled to compensation, as claimed.

7. The learned A.P.P. has argued that in the present matter, the fact is not at all disputed that death in custody did take place. Sandeep was kept at Sub Jail Kandhar in the magisterial custody when the incident took place and constable Pandit Marwade shot Sandeep and himself committed suicide. Reference is made to Government Resolutions dated 4th July, 2011 and 9th March, 2012 to submit that the State has already taken decisions that if the death takes place in custody, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- would be payable if the death occurred due to negligence and amount of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be payable in case the death occurs in custody and offence gets registered against Investigating Officer or employee. The learned A.P.P. fairly stated that the Hon'ble Court may take any suitable decision looking to the facts and circumstances as noticed in the present matter.

8. Looking to the documents on record, it does appear that Sandeep Ghorband died in custody as he was shot by constable Pandit Marwade.

9. The present remedy resorted to by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is available to her in public law. The State is liable for contravention of fundamental rights of the victim. No sovereign immunity can be claimed by Respondents. The act of constable Pandit Manikrao Marwade was clearly illegal and Sandeep became victim of the same. The State cannot shy away from responsibility by claiming that it was individual act of constable Pandit Marwade or by claiming that Sandeep had criminal nature and that, he was arrogant leading to the incident. Persons landing up in lock up are in most of the cases likely to have criminal bend of mind and it is responsibility of the State to ensure that officials who are posted at such lock up are selected by such process or are so trained that they are competent to handle stress or even provocation, so as to keep their cool and not to become law unto themselves.

10. Exhibit R-2 filed in the Petition contains guidelines issued by Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D., State of Maharashtra, Pune dated 21/23rd April, 2012 to all the Police Stations, with reference to rising trend of custodial death. The first and foremost guideline given relates to compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "D.K. Basu". Inter alia, the Police have been advised to find out the medical history of the person when taking the person in custody; need of training in first aid; avoiding unnecessary custody; not to beat the accused and rather resort to modern technology for investigation. One of the important advise given is that there are insufficient guards on duty and there is need to provide sufficient number of Police on Guard duty. Supervisory Officers are required to check the guard every two hours.

Now, if the facts of the present matter are appreciated in the light of guidelines as above, a disturbing picture emerges. Admittedly, in the lockup there was Sandeep Ghorband and there were other five accused (named above). How is it that there was only one person guarding the lockup like Pandit Marwade ? Had it been that there were other officials/guards also, the incident could have been avoided. Documents produced mention that in the Viscera of Sandeep Ghorband, there was evidence of alcohol consumption. No explanation is forthcoming as to how Sandeep happened to have access to alcohol, if he had been arrested and magisterial custody had been obtained. These factors clearly go to show that the State failed to take precautions and to provide sufficient security at the Sub Jail and failed to ensure that the accused kept at Sub Jail do not get harmed. State must be held responsible for the custodial death of Sandeep Ghorband.

11. Coming to the question of compensation, leading case on the subject is the matter of Smt. Nilabati Behera, [2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 36] (supra) Para 16 of the said judgment reads as under :-

"16. 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 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 and 226 of the Constitution. This is what was indicated in Rudul Sah (AIR 1983 SC 1086) and is the basis of the subsequent decisions in which compensation was awarded under Arts. 32 and 226 of the Constitution, for contravention of fundamental rights."

In para 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows :-

"22. The question now, is of the quantum of compensation. The deceased Suman Behera was aged about 22 years and had a monthly income between Rs. 1,200/- to Rs. 1,500/-. This is the finding based on evidence recorded by the District Judge, and there is no reason to doubt its correctness. In our opinion, a total amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- would be appropriate as compensation, to be awarded to the petitioner in the present case. We may, however, observe that the award of compensation in this proceeding would be taken into account for adjustment, in the event of any other proceeding taken by the petitioner for recovery of compensation on the same ground, so that the amount of 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), Cr.P.C. And S. 141(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988."

Thus, in that matter Hon'ble Supreme Court granted compensation for the death of victim who was 22 years old with monthly income of Rs. 1,200/- to Rs. 1,500/- and gave compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- in 1993.

In the matter of Gopichand Chandrabhan Patil (mentioned supra) also there was custodial death, and it was considered as to what would have been minimum wages and taking note of dependent family and applying multiplier of 18, the compensation of Rs. 2,57,160/- was given. Another Bench of this Court has in the matter of Smt. Rekha Janardhan Kale noticed ( in para 39) that there was no reliable data available to determine what was the income of the deceased in that matter. Court considered the age of petitioner shown as 26 years and fact that the petitioner had four daughters in the age group of 5 to 9 years. It was then observed :-

"Even if we take minimum income of Rs.3000/- per month, deducting 1/4th for the personal expenditure of the deceased, the dependency can be fixed at Rs. 27000/-. The age of the deceased must be in between 30 to 35 years. Adopting the test laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by applying multiplier of 16, the amount payable will be Rs. 4,32,000/-. Some more amount will have to be added towards the mental pain and sufferings. Thus, the amount can be taken at Rs. 4,50,000/-. On the said amount, interest will be payable from 16th June 2009 at the rate of 8% per annum till the date of payment."

The Court awarded this compensation along with costs of Rs.25,000/-.

In unreported judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rohtash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-. A copy of the judgment produced shows that Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the matter of Nilabati Behera and in the circumstances of the matter gave compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the appellant.

12. Keeping in view the above judgments, it can be said that as regards the amount of compensation to be granted, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered age and income of the victim and fixed the amount depending on the facts of the matter instead of applying any multiplier as such. This is clear from the matter of Nilabati Behera, [2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 36] (supra). The petitioner would be further at liberty to resort to appropriate proceedings for recovery of compensation due to custodial death. The present compensation to be awarded is remedy in public law to make amount readily available to the persons like the petitioner, who has claimed in the Petition that she has lost sole earning member of the family and family is facing starvation. Grant of compensation would assist the petitioner to some extent to take care of the family and also have the capacity to resort to private law remedies, if she so thinks it fit.

13. The petitioner has with additional affidavit dated 17th June, 2013 submitted student admission extract from the School Records relating to deceased Sandeep. Same discloses that his date of birth was 03.06.1990. The affidavit claims that Sandeep was agriculturist and also working as Annual Labour with Nandkumar Jadhav at Rs. 5,000/- per month. A typed certificate with signature has been put on record. That certificate is not inspiring much confidence in the absence of other supporting material of such income. However, there is 7/12 extract filed which shows that there is about 4 acres of land on the name of petitioner. The 7/12 extract shows that it is a dry land. The petitioner has definitely lost a young son, who could have supported the family by working on his own field. No doubt, the petitioner has another minor son Rameshwar who P.I. Chandrashekhar claims to be 17 years old. Still, considering the age of deceased Sandeep, appropriate compensation needs to be granted to the petitioner. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nilabati took note of the fact that in that matter the deceased Suman Behera was aged about 22 years. Here, Sandeep was aged about 21 years. Hon'ble Supreme Court granted compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in 1993. Looking to the over all rise in the cost of living and value of Rupee at present compared with value in the year 1993 on basis of reasonability and without going into niceties it would be appropriate to fix the compensation at Rs.4,50,000/-.

Although Government has issued Government Resolutions regarding payment of compensation and in the present matter, admittedly Sandeep suffered custodial death and petitioner Kewalbai is accepted to be his mother, she was not given compensation when she submitted claim by letter dated 12.07.2012. There is no reason why State should not be saddled with the interest as well as costs of this Petition.

14. Accordingly, we direct (i) the Respondents shall pay compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- to the petitioner with interest @ 8% p.a. from 12.07.2012 till payment along with costs of this Petition quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.

(ii)The amount shall be deposited with Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nanded. This amount includes the compensation payable by the Government under Government Resolution dated 9th March, 2012.

(iii)The compensation amount with interest and costs shall be deposited within two months.

(iv)The amount of compensation with interest shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalised Bank in the name of petitioner for a period of three years with liberty to her to periodically withdraw the amount of interest. At the end of term of three years, the fixed deposit may be allowed to be encashed at the discretion of the petitioner.

15. We direct the Collector, Nanded on behalf of State of Maharashtra to ensure compliance of the orders of this Court and report within two months.

Rule made absolute in the above terms.

Ordered accordingly.