Konjengbam (O) Pishak Devi vs State Of Manipur And Others

Kh. Nobin Singh, J

[1] Heard Shri I. Denning, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri M. Rarry, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

[2] By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to grant rightful and reasonable compensation to the bereaved family of the deceased, the husband of the petitioner who died in the jail custody.

[3.1] The petitioner‟s son, Shri Konjengbam Yaima @ Tombi Singh got married with Smt. Naorem Asha Devi, daughter of Shri N. Nanda Singh of Serou Mayai Leikai, P.O & P.S Moirang, Bishnupur District, Manipur in the 1st week of December, 2013. The petitioner‟s daughter-in-law died on 28-03-2014 by consuming poison because of which a case under FIR No. 26(3) 2014 MRG-PS U/S 498-A/302 IPC was registered at Moirang P.S and in connection therewith, the petitioner, her husband and her son were arrested by the police on 28-03-2014 itself. A request was made by the Investigating Officer, Moirang P.S before the Hon‟ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur for remanding them into judicial custody for a period of 15 (fifteen) days w.e.f. 05-04-2014 to 19-04-2014 and the detention of the petitioner‟s husband and her son was extended from time to time. While the petitioner‟s husband and her son were in the judicial custody inside the Sajiwa Jail, on 09-03-2015 in the morning, the police personnel/ the officials of the jail informed the petitioner that her husband had died inside the jail as a result of which, a UD case was registered by the Heingang P.S being No. 02/HNG-PS/2015 U/S 174 Cr.P.C. On 10-03-2015, a post-mortem examination was conducted at JNIMS, Porompat and thereafter, a Post-Mortem cum Death Certificate dated 03-06-2015 was issued by the JNIMS, Porompat, Imphal wherein it is stated that the final opinion as to the cause of the death would be given after receiving histo-pathology report of the chemical analysis.

[3.2] The petitioner‟s husband left behind him four children and herself and had died while he was in the jail custody of the respondents. Accordingly, the petitioner requested the Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur vide her representation dated 28-05-2016 to look into the matter and grant ex-gratia to the bereaved family. As no information was received by her from the Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 07-06-2015 to the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur requesting him to provide adequate and reasonable compensation which still remains undecided by him.

[3.3] Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the inter-alia grounds that the action of the respondents is unfair, unreasonable and bad in law being violative of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; that since the petitioner‟s husband died in the jail custody on 09-03-2015, the respondents ought to have taken necessary action to provide adequate compensation to her; that at the time when the petitioner‟s husband was remanded to judicial custody, his health condition was fit but he might have felt unhappy, distress and discomfort because of which he might have died without any trial and that had the petitioner‟s husband been allowed to stay at home till the commencement of the trial, his unnatural death could have been avoided.

[4] An affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 has been filed wherein the averments made in the writ petition have not been seriously disputed by them except narrating the events. But an additional affidavit on behalf of the respondents was filed stating that the forensic samples were sent to CFSL, Kolkata and FSL, Pangei for their expert opinion. The FSL, Pangei submitted its examination report on 27-01-2017 to the effect that no poison was detected in the exhibits, on the basis of which the Department of Forensic Medicine, JNIMS gave its subsequent opinion on 18-02-2017 in the post-mortem report that the exact cause of the death cannot be ascertained but the natural death cannot be ruled out. A reply affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner stating that because of the respondent‟s negligence and carelessness by not providing proper or timely medical attention, the petitioner‟s husband died at the age of 46 years, while he was in the custody of the respondents.

[5] On the basis of the pleadings as aforesaid, the following issues arose for consideration by this Court:

(a) Whether, having regard to the fact that the petitioner‟s husband died while in custody is not denied, the respondents had failed to safeguard the rights of the petitioner‟s husband as guaranteed under the Constitution of India as well as the legal rights as prescribed in law ?

(b) If the issue (a) above, is answered in the affirmative, the further issue is as to whether the failure on the part of the respondents to follow and implement the various provisions of law and the directives issued by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court would amount to their negligence?

(c) If the issue (b) above, is answered in the affirmative, the issue is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if yes, what amount?

[6] It has been vehemently submitted by Shri I. Denning, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondents have failed to adhere strictly to the requirements as prescribed in law and in other words, they have failed to perform their duties as prescribed in Section 54, 55A, 57, 167, 176(1-A) and 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has further been submitted by him that the respondents have failed to follow the provisions of the Prisons Act, 1894 and in particular, the provisions of Section 12, 13, 15 and 18 thereof. In addition thereto, the respondents have infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioner‟s husband as guaranteed under the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as regards the delay in trial, the denial of fair trial, the continued detention without trial, legal aid and the health facilities not being provided. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon & ors. Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81; State of Maharastra Vs. Champalal Panjaji Shah, (1981) 3 SCC 610; (1981) 1 SCC 627; Suk Das Vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, (1986) 2 SCC 401; Rudul Shah Vs. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141; (1985) 1 SCC 41; Mathew Areeparmatil & ors. Vs. State of Bihar & ors., (1985) 2 SCC 102; State of Maharastra Vs. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi & ors., (1995) 5 SCC 730; Poonam Verma Vs. Ashwin Patel & ors., (1996) 4 SCC 332; Commissioner of Police, Delhi & anr. Vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court, (1996) 6 SCC 323; (1997) 2 SCC 83; (1989) 4 SCC 286; (1996) 4 SCC 37 and (2018) 8 SCC 321; Murti Devi Vs. State of Delhi & ors., (1998) 9 SCC 604; State of AP Vs. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy & ors., (2000) 5 SCC 712; D.K Basu Vs. State of West Bengal & ors., (1997) 1 SCC 416; Sheela Barse Vs. State of Maharastra, (1983) 2 SCC 96; Chairman, Railway Board & ors. Vs. Chandrima Das (Mrs) & ors., (2000) 2 SCC 465; V. Krishnakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & ors., (2015) 9 SCC 388; In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2016) 3 SCC 700 and In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2017) 10 SCC 658. It has also been submitted by him that the lapses or the failure on the part of the respondents to perform their duties as prescribed in law and the directives of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court amounts to callousness and negligence and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to compensation, the payment of which can be directed by this Court in exercise of its power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Combating his submissions, Shri M. Rarry, the learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that there is no allegation of torture or physical assault on the petitioner‟s husband and moreover, the petitioner‟s husband was arrested on the allegation of having murdered his own daughter-in-law. He has further submitted that as per the post- mortem report, the cause of death is not known but natural death cannot be ruled out. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on State of Karnataka & ors. Vs. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747; Sube Singh Vs. State of Haryana & ors., (2006) 3 SCC 178 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & ors., (2011) 14 SCC 481.

[7] It is not in dispute that the petitioner‟s husband was arrested in connection with a case registered under FIR No. 26(3)2014 MRG-PS U/S 498-A/302 IPC and was remanded to judicial custody on 05-04-2014 which was extended from time to time. While in custody, he died on 09-03-2015, for which a UD case No.2/HNG-PS/2015 was registered at HNG PS, Imphal East. The allegation of the petitioner is that her husband died due to negligence on the part of the respondents, while the stand of the respondents is that the respondents are not responsible for the death of her husband. As per the information furnished by the police, it is recorded in the postmortem report that the deceased had allegedly expired on the way to JNIMS, Porompat at 5.50 a.m. After the autopsy being conducted over the death body on 10-03-2015, the Medical Officer did not give any opinion as to the cause of death except stating that the final report as to the cause of death will be given after the receipt of the chemical analysis report. In the examination report dated 27-01-2017 submitted by the FSL, Pangei, it has been observed that poison could not be detected in the exhibits marked as A1 and B1 respectively. After having perused the examination report dated 18-02-2017 of the FSL, Pangei, the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy, opined that the exact cause of the death cannot be ascertained. However, natural death cannot be ruled out. Later on, in compliance with the order dated 26-04-2018 passed by this Court, an inquiry was conducted by the i/c Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal East. After holding the inquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate has found that although the exact cause of death has not been given by the Medical Officer, there is nothing to indicate that the death was homicidal or suicidal. As regards the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the negligence on the part of the Jail authority and the lack of basic facilities contributed to the death of the petitioner‟s husband, the learned Judicial Magistrate has observed that the examination of the issue whether the lack of facilities/ doctors inside the Jail is responsible for the death of the petitioner‟s husband, will be beyond the scope of the inquiry. However, in the facts and circumstances, the Judicial Magistrate has further observed that she did not find intentional or willful negligence on the part of the Jail officials so as to make them criminally liable. As has been observed hereinabove, the death of the petitioner‟s husband is an undisputed fact. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the death is natural or unnatural. What does the expression "natural death" mean? It is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure nor has it been defined in the Indian Penal Code and the Prisons Act, 1894. However, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had the occasion to examine this aspect in the case of In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2017) 10 SCC 658. In the website of NCRB, the information as regards the death in judicial custody, both natural and unnatural, is given but the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that the distinction made between „natural and unnatural death‟ is unclear, particularly, in relation to an issue whether if a prisoner dies due to lack of proper medical attention or timely medical attention, that would be classified as a natural death or an unnatural death. Paragraph 9 of the said decision which is relevant for the present case, reads as under:

"9. On the issue of defining natural and unnatural deaths, the learned Amicus Curiae drew our attention to the Guidelines on Investigating Deaths in Custody issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). According to ICRC, "death" is the irreversible cessation of all vital functions, including brain activity. Death is "natural" when it is caused solely by disease and/or the aging process. It is "unnatural" when its causes are external, such as intentional injury (homicide, suicide), negligence or unintentional injury (death by accident). We have perused the guidelines provided by ICRC and are of the view that these guidelines deserve consideration and circulation by the Central Government and all the State Governments."

[8] From the aforesaid decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, it is seen that death is natural when it is caused solely by disease and/ or the aging process. In the present case, the question of aging process will not arise at all for the reason that the petitioner‟s husband was hardly 46 years at the time of his death. As regards the disease which could be said to have been the cause of death, CW 1, the Superintendent, Sajiwa Central jail, during the course of inquiry conducted by the Judicial Magistrate, stated that the deceased was medically examined before his admission to the Jail and he was not found suffering from any illness or disease. During the period of his judicial custody, he never complained of any illness. Moreover, the statement of the Jail Superintendent is corroborated by the statement of CW3, the petitioner to the effect that her husband did not have any illness prior to his arrest. CW 5, the doctor who conducted the autopsy, gave his opinion that the natural death cannot be ruled out because no injury was found; no poison was detected and no violence was detected. The unfortunate part, in the present case, is that the cause of death could not be ascertained by the Medical Officer. It is commonly said that no human being can be said to have died all of a sudden without any cause which is a must and ought to be, may be, due to suicide or homicide or illness or aging process etc. The causes normally found by the Doctor when a human being dies all of a sudden, are cardiac arrest/ heart fail or BP stroke etc. There is no any such cause being found by the Doctor in the autopsy. In other words, there is no any specific opinion of the Doctor that the death of the petitioner‟s husband is natural. On the other hand, as has been observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case, the death is unnatural when its causes are external, such as intentional injury (homicide, suicide), negligence or unintentional injury (death by accident). When the death is not natural, it can definitely be said to be unnatural.

[9] The contention vehemently made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner‟s husband died due to negligence on the part of the respondents and in particular, the jail authorities. In other words, it has been submitted by him that as mandated by the provisions of Section 54 of the Cr.P.C., although the petitioner‟s husband was required to be produced before a Medical Officer for examination soon after his arrest, the respondents failed to do that. The health, welfare and safety of the petitioner‟s husband was not taken care of as required by the provisions of Section 55A, as is evident from the fact that no Doctor was available at the time when he was found lying unconscious. During the period from the date of arrest till his death, the investigation was not completed but no legal aid was provided to him for seeking advice. No inquiry as provided under Section 176(1-A) was held in time and it was held only when this Court vide its order dated 21-06-2018 directed for it and that too, after four years from the date of arrest. As per the report of the Judicial Magistrate, no charge sheet was filed by the police till when the report was submitted by her. It has further been submitted by him that no records or for that matter, the history tickets, are not maintained by the jail authority and even the Doctor who shall perform the duties as prescribed under Section 13 of the Prisons Act, was not there on the day of the unfortunate event. Since there was no Doctor at that point of time, the particulars/ details as regards the death of the petitioner‟s husband were not recorded in the register maintained as required by Section 15 of the Prisons Act. His further submission is that the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, have been violated, in the sense that the petitioner‟s husband was not brought to trial, as the investigation was not completed till his death but he was continued to be kept in jail without any trial. He was denied a fair trial which implies a speedy trial. He was denied the right to free legal services which is an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure for a person accused of an offence.

[10] The above contentions of the counsel appearing for the petitioner have not been seriously controverted by the respondents and as regards the examination of the petitioner‟s husband by a medical Doctor prior to his being kept in the jail, the Superintendent of Police, Sajiwa Central Jail stated in his statement made before the inquiry conducted by the Judicial Magistrate that he was examined by a medical Doctor but no material in support thereof was placed before the Judicial Magistrate. It is an undeniable fact that the petitioner‟s husband died in custody and therefore, it is the responsibility of the respondents and in particular, the jail authority, to furnish the circumstances leading to his death which it utterly failed. Even the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy, is unable to give his opinion as to the cause of the death which is unfortunate. The Doctor appears to have conducted the autopsy in a half-hearted manner. A man of 46 years, with no history of suffering from any disease, will not die all of a sudden without any cause or reason. Therefore, the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner‟s husband died due to the negligence of the respondents, has merit and substance for the reason that the petitioner‟s husband did not have any ailment at the time of his admission to the jail which is admitted by the Superintendent of Jail; the petitioner‟s husband did not make complaint about his health while he was in the jail and that no Doctor was available when he was found unconscious on that day in the morning. As mandated under the provisions of Section 13 of the Prisons Act, the Medical Officer failed to register the particulars as mentioned therein, as he/ she was not present in the jail. Negligence as a tort is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. It may be noted that the negligence as regards an institution/ a body, like the present one, manned by its staff/ officials, is nothing but the failure on the part of its staff/ officials to discharge their duties and functions effectively as prescribed in law. Health is one of the sectors/ components which is to be taken care of by the staff/ officials of the jail in respect of the jail inmates. From the aforesaid circumstances including the lapses/ negligence on the part of the respondents, the death of the petitioner‟s husband does not fall within the meaning of the expression "natural death" as observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in its decision and therefore, this Court has no option but to hold that the death of the petitioner‟s husband cannot be said to be natural but unnatural due to the negligence on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to compensation. In D.K. Basu case (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilized society governed by rule of law. The rights inherent in Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected. The precious rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials, detenues and other prisoners in custody except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law. Since the law relating to custodial death is well settled, there is no point of referring to the other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Moreover, the decisions relied by the counsel appearing for the respondents will have no application to the facts of the present case.

[11] In In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons Case (Supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that the issue of compensation for unnatural deaths in custody is no longer res integra. The relevant paragraphs of which read as under:

"42. One of the earliest cases where this Court granted compensation in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar. That case was not one of a custodial death but was a case of illegal detention even after acquittal in a full dress trial. This Court held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the illegal detention and it rejected the stale and sterile objection of the State Government that the petitioner may, if so advised, file a suit to recover damages. This Court took the view that the refusal to pass an order of compensation would be doing mere lip service to the fundamental right of liberty of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution which the State Government had so grossly violated. This Court observed that: (SCC p. 148, para 10)

"10. ... if civilisation is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others, too well known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy."

A little later, this Court dealt with Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India which concerned itself with the disappearance of some persons while in custody. This Court was convinced that enabling the respondents to trace or locate the two missing persons at such a late stage would be to shut its eyes to reality and to pursue a mirage. It appeared to this Court that the two missing persons had actually met a tragic end in an encounter amounting to an unnatural death. This Court ordered the registration of an offence and an investigation and also directed payment of compensation to the next of kin.

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa was a case where a person who was taken into police custody for investigation of a theft, was found dead near a railway track the next day. On the basis of injuries and handcuffs on his wrists, this Court concluded that it was a custodial death and compensation was awarded under Article 32 of the Constitution. It was held that a public law remedy was certainly available to claim compensation for the contravention of human rights and fundamental rights which are protected as a guarantee by our Constitution. A reference was also made to Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 which reads:

"9.(5) Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation."

An unnatural death in judicial custody where one person was killed by a co-prisoner was the subject-matter of discussion in Kewal Pati v. State of U.P.. It was held that as a consequence of imprisonment, a prisoner does not cease to have constitutional rights, except to the extent he or she has been deprived of them in accordance with law. Therefore, even a prisoner is entitled to protection and if he is killed while in prison, it results in a deprivation of his life contrary to the law, for which the next of kin are entitled to compensation.

In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. this Court recognised that at the time of ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 in 1979, the Government of India made a specific reservation to the effect that the Indian legal system does not recognise a right to compensation for victims of unlawful arrest or detention and only became a party to the covenant, subject to this reservation. It was noted, however, that the reservation has lost its relevance in view of the law laid down by this Court in several cases wherein compensation has been awarded for the infringement of a fundamental right of a citizen. It was also noted that while there is no express provision in the Constitution for grant of compensation, this right has been judicially evolved in cases of established unconstitutional deprivation of personal liberty or life. This Court summed up the law in the following words: (SCC p. 443, para 54)

"54. Thus, to sum up, it is now a well-accepted proposition in most of the jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must receive the amount of compensation from the State, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrongdoer. In the assessment of compensation, the emphasis has to be on the compensatory and not on punitive element. The objective is to apply balm to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or the offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offence (irrespective of compensation) must be left to the criminal courts in which the offender is prosecuted, which the State, in law, is duty-bound to do. The award of compensation in the public law jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other action like civil suit for damages which is lawfully available to the victim or the heirs of the deceased victim with respect to the same matter for the tortious act committed by the functionaries of the State. The quantum of compensation will, of course, depend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no straitjacket formula can be evolved in that behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for the established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under the public law jurisdiction is, thus, in addition to the traditional remedies and not in derogation of them. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Court and paid by the State to redress the wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted against any amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil suit."

Ajab Singh v. State of U.P., Murti Devi v. State (NCT of Delhi) and more recently Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana illustrate that custodial death is a clear violation of the prisoner's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and relief could be moulded by granting compensation to the next of kin of the deceased.

In addition to the above decisions and several others rendered by this Court, almost every High Court in the country has, at one time or another, also granted compensation for the unnatural death of a person in custody, whether an undertrial or a convict. A few such illustrations may be noted:

(a) Nina Rajan Pillai v. Union of India

48.1. The husband of the petitioner died in judicial custody due to inadequate medical treatment given by the jail authorities. The Lt. Governor of Delhi even appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Leila Seth, a former Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court to inquire into the circumstances that led to the death of the petitioner's husband. The Delhi High Court awarded compensation for the unnatural death in custody.

(b) Kewalbai v. State of Maharashtra

48.2. The victim was shot dead by a constable while in custody. The Bombay High Court awarded compensation for the unnatural death in custody.

(c) Bheduki Buragohain v. State of Assam

48.3. The undertrial victim died in judicial custody under suspicious circumstances. The post-mortem report indicated that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation and ante-mortem injuries by blunt weapons. The Gauhati High Court awarded compensation for the unnatural death in custody.

(d) Madhuben Adesara v. State of Gujarat

48.4. The deceased was brutally tortured by police officers while in custody and succumbed to his injuries during treatment. The post-mortem report revealed that the victim had multiple injury marks which were ante-mortem in nature. The Gujarat High Court awarded compensation for the unnatural death in custody.

(e) Banalata Dash v. State of Orissa

48.5. The deceased was found hanging from a tree with his hands behind his back, tied at the wrist with a towel. Since the victim was in the custody of the prison authorities, compensation was awarded by the Orissa High Court for the unnatural death in custody.

48.6. The deceased was assaulted by a co-prisoner and succumbed to injuries in the hospital. Due to the unnatural death in custody, the Punjab and Haryana High Court awarded compensation to the next of kin of the deceased.

(g) Tmt. Rohini Lingam v. State

48.7. The victim was murdered by his enemies while in prison. Due to the unnatural death in custody, the Madras High Court awarded compensation to his next of kin.

(h) Sabu E.K. v. State of Kerala

48.8. The victim was tortured in a police station and succumbed to his injuries. In view of the unnatural death in custody the Kerala High Court awarded interim compensation to the next of kin of the deceased until the criminal trial against the police officers concerned was concluded.

(i) Ravindra Nath Awasthi v. State of U.P.

48.9. The victim was an advocate held guilty of contempt of court. While he was undergoing his sentence, he was severely beaten up by the prison authorities and succumbed to his injuries in hospital. Due to the unnatural death in custody, the Allahabad High Court directed payment of compensation to the next of kin of the deceased.

(j) Madina v. State of Rajasthan

48.10. The victim died in police custody on account of the use of third degree methods. Due to the unnatural death in custody, compensation was awarded by the Rajasthan High Court to the next of kin of the deceased.

(k) Dukhuram v. State of Chhattisgarh

48.11. The deceased was taken from the police station in order to recover stolen articles alleged to have been hidden by him at a secret place. He was brought to a pond and compelled to dive into the pond. At that time he was handcuffed and in chains. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was found floating in the pond. In view of the unnatural death, while the deceased was in the custody of police officers, the Chhattisgarh High Court awarded compensation.

(l) Santosh Kumari v. State of H.P.

48.12. The victim died while he was in police custody and it was found that he had injuries on his head, shoulders, eyes, knees and private parts. He died in hospital as he was not given medical assistance in time. In view of the unnatural death while in custody, the Himachal Pradesh High Court awarded compensation to the next of kin of the deceased.

(m) State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmad Dar

48.13. The victim died due to cardiopulmonary arrest while detained in the District Jail under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. It was held that death was due to carelessness, non- seriousness and negligence in not extending medical treatment. In view of the unnatural death in custody, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court awarded the compensation to the next of kin of the deceased.

(n) Meena Singh v. State of Bihar

48.14. The victim was attacked and killed by co-prisoners by the use of chhura, iron rods and belts, etc. The next of kin of the deceased were awarded compensation by the Patna High Court for the unnatural death of the victim in custody.

(o) Lawyers for Justice v. State of M.P.

48.15. The victim was facing trial for offences under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860. While he was undergoing treatment in a hospital he was shot dead by an unknown person. In view of the unnatural death while in custody, the Madhya Pradesh High Court awarded compensation to the next of kin of the victim.

There are several such cases -documented and undocumented - all over the country but in spite of repeated decisions delivered by this Court and perhaps every High Court there seems to be no let up in custodial deaths. This is not a sad but a tragic state of affairs indicating the apparent disdain of the State to the life and liberty of individuals, particularly those in custody. The time to remedy the situation is long past and yet, there seems to be no will and therefore no solution in sight

This Court also had the occasion to consider the issue relating to payment of compensation for the violation of the fundamental rights in Shri Somi Kamkara Vs. State of Manipur & ors., WP(C) No.894 of 2017 decided on 11-07-2019. In fact, the subject matter in issue involved therein related to the injuries sustained, due to electrocution, by a child of six years resulting in the amputation of his left hand and his right hand was likely to be amputated later. Keeping in mind the various factors including the age of the child, the performance in the school, the loss of pleasure and happiness, the pain and suffering, the mental stress, the future medical expenses to be incurred etc. this Court directed for payment of compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/-. In MCD Vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Assn. case (supra), it has been held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that what can be awarded as compensation by way of public law remedy need not only be a nominal palliative amount, but something more. It can be by way of making monetary amounts for the wrong done or by way of exemplary damages, exclusive of any amount recoverable in a civil action based on tortuous liability.

[12] In view of the fact that the petitioner‟s husband being an ordinary person who died in custody, the petitioner is entitled to compensation. The further short question that arises for consideration is as to what amount would be reasonable to be directed for payment as compensation in the facts and circumstances. In some similar cases, this Court had directed for payment of Rs.5 lakh as compensation. In the present case, the petitioner‟s husband died leaving behind him his four children and the petitioner. There is no material on record to show the occupation of the petitioner‟s husband before his arrest. Keeping in mind the circumstances in which the petitioner was left and compelled to bring up her children single handedly; the hardship and agony that she had suffered during the last about five years, the money that she required for children‟s education etc, this Court might pass an appropriate order directing for payment of compensation. The loss that she suffered after the death of her husband, cannot be compensated in terms of money but the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has some force and merit. Moreover, the orders that this Court had passed directing for payment of compensation of Rs.5 lakh in some similar cases as stated hereinabove, were passed some years ago and therefore, this Court is of the view that the end of justice will be met, if this Court imposes a compensation of Rs.6 lakhs to be paid by the State of Manipur to the petitioner within a period of six months from today on account of the death of her husband in their custody which we direct. In order to make it convenient to the petitioner to receive the amount, the State of Manipur should deposit the said amount to the Registry of this Court within the aforesaid period, which would in turn be deposited into the individual account of the petitioner which may be opened by her, if not already opened by her.

The instant writ petition stands allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.