Hazura Singh vs State of Punjab

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

This is a petition filed by Hazura Singh (hereinafter described as the petitioner) under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking compensation to the family of Bagicha Singh who is alleged to have been eliminated by the Police on 6.3.1993.

Hazura Singh is the father of the deceased. Habeas Corpus petition was filed by Hazura Singh for the production of his son Bagicha Singh. It was alleged that Bagicha Singh had been taken into custody on 30.12.1992. Notice had been issued to the State of Punjab. In that petition, it was asserted by the State that Bagicha Singh had been arrested in FIR No. 69 at Police Station Hariana by Inspector Lakha Singh. He was produced in Court and was remanded to custody. He was being taken for the recovery of concealed Stengun and ammunition. On the way, Bagicha Singh asked for permission to case himself. Constable Sodhi took him to the nearby fields. Bagicha Singh ran away and a case under section 224 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at P.S. Hariana.

On 8.4.1994, this Court had directed that an enquiry be held regarding the circumstances in which Bagicha Singh is alleged to have escaped from the police custody. Sessions Judge Hoshiarpur was appointed to hold the enquiry. The report of the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur is dated 30.11.1993. The learned Sessions Judge, in his report did not accept the version of the State and in the concluding paragraph of the said report, he has stated as under :

"As a result of above discussion, it will be safe and reasonable to conclude that the version with regard to the escape of Bagicha Singh from the custody of the police party headed by Inspector Lakha Singh, SHO, on 6.3.1993 at about 8.00 p.m., while being taken to Bariana cho for the recovery of stengun is inherently infirm and too unnatural and improbable to be believed as correct and it seems to have been put forward with a view to justify the nonproduction of Bagicha Singh before the Court of Miss Manju Bala, Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, on 8.3.1993, on the expiry of police remand and in all probability, Bagicha Singh was eliminated by that police party."

On 11.8.1994, a Single Bench of this Court directed that a case be registered against Lakha Singh, SHO incharge of the police station and the police party headed by him. It was further directed that investigation should be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police, Crimes, or Inspector General of Police, Internal Vigilance. The request of the petitioner''s learned counsel for awarding suitable compensation was left open. The petitioner was allowed to make appropriate application either in this Court or in any other Court of competent jurisdiction.

In pursuance of the above direction, present petition has been filed.

In the reply filed by Inspector Lakha Singh, earlier version is reproduced. He has mentioned that Bagicha Singh was produced on 6.3.1993 in the Court of Ms. Manju Bala Judicial Magistrate 1st Class who remanded him till 8.3.1993. He made a disclosure statement that he had concealed his stengun and some ammunition. He was being taken to the said place. On the way, he wanted to attend to the call of nature. His handcuffs were removed and he escaped. A case under Section 224 was registered.

In the facts and circumstances of the case question that came up for consideration is as to whether this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and award compensation to the bereaved family.

It becomes not necessary to ponder over in detail because answer is provided by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Nilabati v. State of Orissa and others, 1994(1) RCR 18 . The question for consideration before the Supreme Court was that as to if the State is liable to pay compensation. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, the answer is given. In fact it held that right to make claim, compensation for unlawful acts of the instrumentalities must be recognised because such acts are in the name of public interest. Concluding paragraph 22 of the Supreme Court judgment is produced hereunder :

"It would however be appropriate to spell out clearly the principle on which the liability of the State arises in such cases for payment of compensation and the distinction between this liability and the liability in private law for payment of compensation in an action on tort. It may be mentioned straightaway that award of compensation in a proceeding under Article 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. This is a distinction between the two remedies to be borne in mind which also indicates the basis on which compensation is awarded in such proceedings. We shall now refer to the earlier decisions of this Court as well as some other decisions before further discussion of this principle."

The findings above permit this Court to award compensation. The facts above for purpose of this judgment reveal that it is a fit case to protect the children of Bagicha Singh.

Bagicha Singh was about 30 years old. He was married and has four children besides his old parents and wife. He was working in the Gurdwara of the village as such. In the evidence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, it is transpired that he also has some land in the village. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, Rs. 1 lac would be appropriate compensation to be awarded to the petitioner. This is made clear that compensation in this proceedings could be taken into account and adjusted if any other amount is awarded. Necessary steps must be taken by the State for compliance of this order. An award of compensation will not affect any liability of the respondents or any other person flowing from the alleged custodial death.

JUDGMENT accordingly.