JUDGMENT
W.A. Shishak, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organisation (CLAHRO), Manipur, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1980, represented by its General Secretary who is a member of the High Court Bar Association, as a public interest social action on behalf of Ningthoujam Rashi Devi, wife of late Ningthoujam Angou Singh and three minor children as dependants of N. Angou Singh who died while in custody of police.
2. Facts leading to the present case may be stated briefly. On 28.1.1989 at about 6 a.m. a group of armed police men of Chandel Police Station numbering about 6 (six) led by one Achou Singh, ASI, attached to Chandel Police Station took him away from his house in a police jeep saying that he was required in connection with some case but no particulars were disclosed to the members of his family. Said N. Angou Singh was handcuffed by the respondent No. 7, when he was taken away. It may be stated that said N. Angou Singh was at the relevant time serving as Grade-IV Technical Jugali/Pump Operator under Public Health Engineering Department. On the same date, i.e., 28.1.1989 at about 12.30 p.m., the respondent No. 7 and other policemen brought N. Angou Singh to the District Hospital at Chandel in a dying condition with severe injuries on different parts of his body. The doctors at the said hospital declared N. Angou Singh dead. The petitioner contends that under the influence of respondent No. 7 a false message was sent to the higher authority at Imphal that Angou Singh was arrested as an accused in F.I.R. Case No. 5 (1) 89 Chandel P.S. under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, in connection with the death of one Angom Amu Singh, chowkidar of the said Water Supply Scheme. On 30.1.1989 at 9.10 a.m. the dead body of Angou Singh was brought to Sugnu Police Station where the body of the deceased was handed over by the police to the relatives. On 6.2.1989 the petitioner sent a letter to the Chief Secretary with copies to all concerned for holding an enquiry under Section 176, Criminal Procedure Code. As no response was received by the petitioner, a reminder was sent on 14.4.1989 to the respondent Nos. 2 and 6 for taking up necessary action in the matter.
3. A notification dated 6.2.1989 was issued by S.D.M. stating that he was holding a Magisterial enquiry into the cause of death of N. Angou Singh who was arrested by the police of Chandel Police Station on 28.1.1989 and reported to have died on the same day. It was stated in the said notification that all interested persons who were desirous of giving evidence in the matter should submit their statement on or before 15.2.1989. Statement of Rashi Devi, wife of the deceased was recorded by the learned S.D.M. Among other things, she stated that her husband was in good health and she had never found him to be exhausted even if he skipped a meal or two. She also stated that at the time of arrest her husband was handcuffed and the police people told her that they only wanted to take her husband’s evidence in a small matter and that nothing would happen to him. She also heard the police people telling her husband ‘Angou, you would get half pay from today onwards’. She was also told that they were personnel of Chandel Police Station. It was observed by the S.D.M. as follows:
During her statement she was on the verge of crying at several points. (Which I think was but natural).
4. A complaint was lodged with the Magistrate by Rashi Devi on 28.1.1989. It may be stated that post-mortem was carried out on the body of the deceased Angou Singh on 28.1.1989.
In column 12 of the death report it is stated:
(12) Cause of death: 2 internal injury.
Cause of death vide Annexure-A/10 is:
Shock from testicular pain sensation by blunt object.
Report of Chemical Examination is stated to be:
(1) Stomach and it’s contents Tox-32 (a)
(2) Liver, spleen, kidney Tox-32 (b) gave negative test for common poison.
It is contended that although the death was alleged to have been caused by taking poison, such allegation was not proved in view of the Chemical Examination Report including the cause of death as stated above.
5. In spite of complaint filed by the wife of the deceased the police did not carry out investigation. On 1.7.1989, Chief Judicial Magistrate stated in his order that the matter required investigation. O.C. Chandel Police Station was directed to investigate and to submit report as early as possible. However, no report was submitted and no progress was made in the case.
6. In the present case no ex gratia payment was made to the members of the family of the deceased Government servant. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Government.
7. Mr. A. Nilamani, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that death of N. Angou Singh while in police custody is an incontestable case on the part of the State Government inasmuch as the said Angou Singh died on the same day he was arrested and the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased by police. It is submitted that the deprivation of life of N. Angou Singh by or in the hands of police in the present circumstances is a clear violation and abuse of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also quite a negation or a challenge to the established Rule of Law and a danger signal to a civilised and democratic society. It is further stated that due to the deprivation of the life of the only breadwinner in the family, the wife and the minor children have been driven to destitution inasmuch as they have no sufficient means of livelihood. Mr. Nilamani submits that this writ petition has been filed bona fide seeking relief and remedy for securing justice on behalf of the members/dependants of the victim and solely for their benefit. It is the submission of Mr. Nilamani that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the only practicable mode of redressal available to the members of the family of the deceased is to award compensation.
8. We have heard Mr. A. Jagatchandra, learned Government Advocate. As we have stated above no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Admittedly no ex gratia payment has been paid to the members of the family of the victim. Mr. Jagat states that investigation was carried out against the police personnel in connection with the death of N. Angou Singh and charge-sheet has been filed under Section 302/202/34, Indian Penal Code, as instructed by S.P. (CID). Mr. Jagat has not been able to state clearly as to the progress or result of such trial. It is also stated by Mr. Jagat that in the Magisterial enquiry the post-mortem report was also confirmed. However, it is submitted by Mr. Jagat that in the present petition, there is no specific prayer claiming compensation for the death of N. Angou Singh and as such, according to him, the State cannot be directed to make payment of compensation to the members of the family of the deceased. Relying on M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1987 ACJ 386 (SC) Mr. Nilamani submits that depending on the circumstances of a case this Court is competent to grant compensation even in a case where no such specific relief has been sought in the writ petition. According to Mr. Nilamani, in order to do complete justice, there is no other way except allowing compensation when death of a person in custody is established. In Inder Singh v. State of Punjab 1995 ACJ 1063 (SC), it was held that the primary duty of those in uniform is to uphold law and order and protect the citizen and if members of a police force resort to illegal abduction and assassination, if other members of that police force do not record and investigate complaints in this behalf for long periods of time, if those who had been abducted are found to have been unlawfully detained in police stations in the State concerned prior to their probable assassination, the case is not one of errant behaviour by a few members of that police force. It betrays scant respect for the life and liberty of innocent citizens and exposes the willingness of others in uniform to lend a helping hand to one who wreaks private vengeance on mere suspicion. In the aforesaid case a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) was ordered to be given to the legal representatives of the victim. A cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) was also awarded. In 1995 Criminal Law Journal 347, in a similar case of death in custody compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) was awarded. In 1995 (2) GLR 337 the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation.
9. On careful perusal of the documents placed before us and after hearing counsel of both sides and in the facts and circumstances narrated above, we are of the view that death of N. Angou Singh in police custody has been established. In such a situation, the only remedy we can think of is to award compensation so that the members of the family of the deceased may not be driven to destitution. In our view, this is the only practicable mode of relief we can allow in this petition.
10. In the result, this petition is allowed. The respondent State is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) to the wife and the minor children of N. Angou Singh within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order. It shall be open to the State Government to recover this amount of compensation from persons who are found responsible for causing death to N. Angou Singh in police custody.
With the above direction and observation this petition is disposed of.
1. P.K. Ghosh, J.
11. I agree.