Last Updated:
The court held that the State is liable for violation of the fundamental right to life and emphasised that compensation must have a deterrent effect to prevent such violations.
A writ of mandamus was issued directing the State to pay Rs. 2,00,000 within eight weeks, failing which the amount will carry 9% annual interest from the date of the order.
In a scathing indictment of custodial abuse and systemic apathy, the Chhattisgarh High Court has directed the State to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation to the mother of a 27-year-old man, Suraj Haththel, who died while in police custody. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that the State is liable for violation of the fundamental right to life and emphasised that compensation must have a deterrent effect to prevent such violations.
‘Compensation must serve as deterrence’
“The Courts have time and again deprecated such conduct on the part of police/jail officials…the compensation, which is to be awarded, should also have a deterrent effect on the State,” the Bench observed, reiterating that custodial violence undermines the rule of law and fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the deceased’s mother, who had sought an independent investigation; preferably by the CBI, into her son’s death, along with the post-mortem report, CCTV footage from the relevant police station, and other related documents.
She also sought monetary compensation, arguing that the official narrative was riddled with contradictions.
Suspicious death, missing CCTV footage, and contested injury claims
The magisterial inquiry had attributed the cause of death to a “myocardial infarction” owing to coronary artery disease. However, the post-mortem report revealed multiple injuries including abrasions and lacerations, raising serious questions about custodial torture.
Further, the judicial inquiry noted that CCTV footage was only available until 2:47 AM, the exact time after which the deceased was reportedly taken out of the police station.
The State attributed this gap to a “power cut,” a claim the petitioner disputed, pointing out that no evidence of such a power outage was produced, thereby suggesting a deliberate attempt to destroy or suppress evidence.
Court slams State’s version, cites Supreme Court precedents
Rejecting the State’s defence, the High Court observed that its version lacked credibility and appeared designed to obscure the truth. The Bench referred to landmark Supreme Court judgments in Saheli v. Commissioner of Police (1989), Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), DK Basu v State of West Bengal (1996), and Ajab Singh v. State of UP (2000), all of which affirmed the liability of the State in custodial deaths.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s 2017 judgment In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, the Court reiterated, “Human rights are not dependent on the status of a person but are universal in nature… A person in prison custody could nevertheless be a victim of an unnatural death. Hence the need to compensate the next of kin.”
Compensation for public law breach, not just private wrong
The Court underlined that in cases of custodial death, compensation awarded under Article 226 is in the nature of exemplary damages and distinct from private law remedies such as tort claims or criminal prosecution.
“This is compensation awarded for breach of public law duty, not in substitution of other legal remedies,” the Bench clarified.
State directed to compensate within 8 weeks
Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioner is entitled to compensation as her son died due to negligence and misconduct on the part of the State’s officials. A writ of mandamus was issued directing the State to pay Rs 2,00,000 within eight weeks, failing which the amount will carry 9 per cent annual interest from the date of the order.
“Taking into consideration the loss of estate, love and affection, and dependency due to the untimely death of the petitioner’s son, we find the State liable for monetary reparation,” the Bench concluded.
Sukriti Mishra, a Lawbeat correspondent, graduated in 2022 and worked as a trainee journalist for 4 months, after which she picked up on the nuances of reporting well. She extensively covers courts in Delhi.
Sukriti Mishra, a Lawbeat correspondent, graduated in 2022 and worked as a trainee journalist for 4 months, after which she picked up on the nuances of reporting well. She extensively covers courts in Delhi.
- First Published:
