Supreme CourtDivision Bench

Kewal Pati (Smt) vs State of U.P. and Others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 6 April 1995 · Citation: (1995) ACJ 859 : (1995) CriLJ 2920 : (1995) 2 Crimes 304 : (1996) 1 LW(Cri) 6 : (1995) 2 SCALE 729 : (1995) 3 SCC 600 : (1995) 3 SCR 207 : (1995) 2 UJ 291

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. B. Majmudar, J · R. M. Sahai, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1119 of 1991
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 466 words
1.

This petition was entertained on a letter sent by the wife of the deceased Ramjit Upadhaya who was killed by a co-accused while serving out his sentence u/s 302 I.P.C. in Central Jail, Varanasi. The petitioner and her children have claimed compensation both in law and on compassionate grounds. Reports were obtained from the Inspector General of Prisons, U.P, and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Varanasi. They confirm that Ramjit Upadhaya was killed by co-accused. A counter affidavit was also filed by Deputy Jailor, Central Jail, Varanasi, admitting that Ramjit Upadhaya was killed by co-accused, Happu, against whom case u/s 303 has been registered. Affidavit was filed on behalf of the Government as well stating that there was no provision in the U.P. Jail Manual for grant of compensation to the family of the deceased convict.

2.

Ramjit Upadhaya was a convict and was working as a Nambardar in the jail. He was strict in maintaining discipline amongst the co-accuses. It was due to his strictness in his behavior as Nambardar that he was attacked and killed by Happu - a co-accused. Even though Ramjit Upadhaya was a convict and was serving his sentence yet the authorities were not absolved of their responsibility to ensure his life and safety in the jail. A prisoner does not cease to have his constitutional right except to the extent he has been deprived of it in accordance with law (See Francis Coralie Mullin Vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Others, and A.K. Roy and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . Therefore, he was entitled to protection. Since killing took place when he was in jail, it resulted in deprivation of his life contrary to law. He is survived by his wife and three children. His untimely death has deprived the petitioner and her children of his company and affection. Since it has taken place while he was serving his sentence due to failure of the authorities to protect him, we are of opinion that they are entitled to be compensated.

3.

In the result this petition is allowed by directing that the State of U.P. shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within three months from today, with the Registrar of this Court. A sum of Rs.50,000/- put of this amount shall be deposited in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank and the interest of it shall be paid to the wife and the children. The remaining amount shall be paid to the wife by the Registrar after being satisfied about the identification of the petitioner. The amount in deposit shall be paid to the wife on her option after all the children become major. In case of petitioner's death prior to the children becoming major, the amount shall be divided equally between the surviving children.