Jai Kaur vs State of Haryana and Others

K. Kannan, J.—The writ petition contains a prayer claiming compensation of Rs. 10 lakh to the petitioner for the death of her son, aged 23 years. The contention is that the petitioner''s son had applied for a job with the Railway Recruitment Board and was expected to be soon appointed, but in the meanwhile, one Rajabala wife of Shri Gian Chander had died on 01.09.1990 owing to consumption of some poisonous substance. Gian Chander was petitioner''s elder brother''s son. The police arrested Gian Chand on 14.09.1990. In the course of investigation, the petitioner''s son had also been falsely implicated and taken to the custody of the police. On 20.09.1990, the petitioner''s son had been retained in police custody and when he did not return, the petitioner heard that her son was being beaten up mercilessly by the police and his condition has become serious. Her son ultimately died in the police custody, but the police had feigned ignorance about the whereabouts of her son. When her son was found dead later, the police wanted to make it appear as though it was a case of suicide, but on account of the persistent efforts of the petitioner and relatives, a FIR had been registered vide No. 430 of 1991 against respondents 3 to 5, who were Inspectors and ASI, who were alleged to be involved in causing the disappearance of the petitioner''s son and causing his death. The criminal case was tried and at the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner has cited that the Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, had committed respondents 3 to 5 for trial for offences under Sections 367 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The criminal court, namely, the Additional District Judge, Rewari, delivered the judgment on 18.09.2008, convicting respondents 3 and 4 for offences under Sections 307, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted 5th respondent. In the writ petition with no definite evidence available, I have to go only with the records that have clearly shown that the death has resulted on account of the conduct of respondents 3 and 4. The conviction itself has not been u/s 302 IPC, but there is no doubt that the petitioner''s son, who had been taken into custody, ultimately did not return home alive. The State has to therefore be responsible for burdened with compensation for the ultimate cause of death. The award of compensation through a public law remedy of writ petitions has been well established. In Arvinder Singh Bagga Vs. State of U.P. and Others, the Supreme Court was making an intervention directing investigation into death of a person in police custody awarded interim compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. We have gone past the stage where any direction for investigation was necessary. Actually criminal proceedings have rendered conviction against respondents 4 and 5 and illegal detention had been established. Nearly 2 decades have passed since death and it will be grossly inequitable to direct the petitioner to resort to civil action for damages. The appropriateness of public law remedy for violation of Article 21 was established in Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . In Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , the Supreme Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for causing disappearance to the member of the Bar by the police and later, he was found dead. That was taken as sufficient to make the state responsible for damages. A mere detention in Inder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, in a case of abduction and killing of person by police, the State was directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- to each of the 7 deceased persons. Having regard to the fact that conviction has been not for Section 302, but for alleged offences u/s 367 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC, although the respondents 3 to 5 had been charged with offences u/s 302, 342 read with Section 120 IPC, still I would award a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs against the respondents 1 and 2. It shall be open to the State to recover the same against the respondents 3 and 4 in accordance with law. The amount shall be paid with interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. The amount shall be paid by the State within 4 weeks.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations.