Orissa High Court Directs State To Pay 5 Lakh As Compensation To Parents Of Deceased

The Bench of Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice Biswajit Mohanty concluded,

“Even when it isn’t established that the ante mortem accidents discovered on his particular person throughout autopsy had been brought on by the Police, the regulation of strict legal responsibility for the negligence of the police in not assembly the fundamental minimal normal of care in offering him immediate medical consideration would stand attracted.”

The Plea earlier than the Courtroom

The petitioners submitted earlier than the Courtroom that their son Manoj was returning house at about 2 am on 6^th June, 2005 after watching a ‘melody live performance’, when the Inspector-in-Cost (IIC) of the City PS, accompanied by another policemen, forcibly took him to the Police Station.

The subsequent morning at 10.30 am, the Police knowledgeable the Petitioners that Manoj (their son) had been taken to Sadar Hospital, Dhenkanal.

After the Petitioners reached the Sadar Hospital, on the recommendation of the medical doctors there, Manoj was taken to the SCB Medical School and Hospital, Cuttack by a medical ambulance.

Sadly, he died on the way in which. The case of the Petitioners was that he died because of alleged brutal torture by the Dhenkanal Police.

The model of Police

The model of the Police was that the deceased (Manoj) had entered right into a international liquor store in a drunken state by making a gap within the asbestos roof and that he fell down from the roof to the ground and thereafter began making uncommon sounds.

This attracted the police patrolling celebration. The store was thereafter opened and Manoj was dropped at the Police Station within the early hours of seven^th June, 2005 and stored within the verandah for verification.

At about 8.50 am when Manoj complained of ache in his stomach and began vomiting, he was shifted to Dhenkanal Headquarters Hospital for remedy.

Courtroom’s observations

Bearing in mind the model submitted by the Police and the remaining closure report submitted and accepted by the SDJM, Dhenkanal on 25^th November, 2012 (whereby it was submitted that there was nothing to show that the dying was a ‘custodial dying’ brought on by the police), the Courtroom mentioned,

“Nevertheless, this doesn’t absolve the police of their tasks of making certain well timed medical assist to an individual, who had clearly been arrested and introduced in a situation of ache into the City PS…When on their very own exhibiting the police on breaking open the international liquor store discovered the deceased on the ground writhing in ache, there was no justification in preserving him within the PS of their custody with none medical consideration from 3.20 am to 9 am. This was nothing however negligence, plainly inexcusable.”

Importantly, the Courtroom mentioned,

“The regulation in regard to the legal responsibility of state functionaries for acts of negligence has been nicely settled in a sequence of selections, lots of which cope with deaths of individuals whereas in judicial custody. These would apply with equal power to a state of affairs of confirmed case of dying whereas in police custody on account of negligence of the police.”

The Courtroom additional made it clear that as soon as an individual is in the custody of the police, the safety of that particular person’s life and liberty is in their arms. They’re answerable for no matter occurs to the particular person of their custody.

Additional, the Courtroom cited many circumstances (together with the Case of ‘In re Loss of life of Sawinder Singh Grover [1995 Supp (4) SCC, 450‘) wherein the Apex Court extended the liability of state functionaries for acts of omission or commission constituting constitutional tort to deaths or violence that occurred, not necessarily at the hands of the officials, but while in their custody.

The Court also cited Apex Court’s ruling in the case of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy (2000) 5 SCC 712, wherein the liability of the state to compensate for the death of a prison inmate in unnatural circumstances was reiterated.

It may be noted that in the case of Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons reported in (2017) 10 SCC 658, the Apex Court had specifically stated,

“But it is important for the Central Government and the State Governments to realize that persons who suffer an unnatural death in a prison are also victims – sometimes of a crime and sometimes of negligence and apathy or both.”

Lastly, the Court observed that it is evident from the report of investigation of the police themselves that Manoj remained in police custody from 3.20 am till his death more than seven hours later on 7th June 2005.

To this, the Court said,

“The law of strict liability for the negligence of the police in not meeting the basic minimum standard of care in providing him prompt medical attention would stand attracted.”

Thus, the Court directed that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) be paid by the State of Odisha to the Petitioners as compensation for the death of their son while in police custody.

Case title – Purna Chandra Mohapatra and Another v. State of Odisha & Others [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13774 OF 2005]

Click Here To Download Order/Judgment

Learn Order/Judgment