JUDGMENT
P.K. Sinha, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India preferred by Gudi Singh, wife of Brahma Singh. It is admitted position that said Brahma Singh was in custody in connection with Dhuraundha (M.H. Nagar) P.S. Case No. 29 of 1999 for various offences and was remanded to judicial custody by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Siwan on 12.2.1999 and was interned in Siwan Jail. It is admitted position that quarrel took place in jail on 20.3.2000 amongst the jail inmates and, allegedly, a group of such inmates assaulted Brahma Singh within the premises of the jail on 20.3.2000, as a result of which he subsequently died and a case for that was filed which, the learned Counsel for the petitioner admits, ended in acquittal. However, there is no dispute that while in jail custody as a result of such assault Brahma Singh had died. The petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- stating that she is widow of late Brahma Singh having two minor children aged about 4 and 2 years respectively on the date on which this petition was filed in the year 2000. That compensation should be provided in such a case and to argument that proposition learned Counsel has also filed a copy of the judgment of this Court passed in Cr. W.J.C. No. 859 of 1996 in which this Court had granted compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- under similar circumstances.
2. In this case counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4,5,6 and 7. Though blame has been apportioned to other officials in different counter-affidavits, but this Court need not go into that question because the State admits that Brahma Singh had died because of assault upon him inside the jail premises.
3. Fundamental rights of a prisoner remain intact even while in jail custody but for restrictions on his movement. Obviously, in this case Brahma Singh had died because of certain omissions to maintain law and order inside jail premises by the jail authorities and by the State. Therefore, in my opinion the petitioner, who is a widow of the deceased having two small children, is entitled to compensation to be paid by the State.
4. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, learned Counsel for the petitioner admits that it has not been mentioned in the petition as to what was the deceased doing at the time he was in custody to make an earning for self and for the family. But the fact remains that the deceased had left behind his wife and two small children. In view of that the demand of compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- appears to be excessive.
5. Considering the circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- would do justice to the petitioner.
6. In the circumstances, this Court directs the State to deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- with the Registrar General of this Court within eight weeks of the receipt of the copy of this order, out of which Rs. 70,000/- will be paid to the petitioner by depositing the amount in an Account in her name. She will open an Account in any Nationalised Bank if that has not been done. The rest amount of Rs. 80,000/- will be deposited in the names of two children in two fixed deposits of Rs. 40,000/- each for a period of one year in a Nationalised Bank which will be renewed from year to year till the children reach the age of 18 years. The amount so Accumulated till then will be paid by the Bank to the petitioner, if by then she has not remarried. If she has remarried then the Accumulated amount will be paid to each child, Dipal and Nitish.
7. This application is allowed to the extent indicated above.
8. A copy of this order will be given to learned Junior Counsel to the Government Advocate.