JUDGMENT
D.N. Prasad, J.
1. This writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the sole petitioner in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to investigate into the circumstances under which his father, namely, Late Jay Prakash Sharma was arrested in connection with Jorapokhar F.S. Case No. 204 of 1995, even without being implicated and is awarding suitable compensation at least 5 lacks and a job to one of the petitioner
as the father of the petitioner had died due to negligence of the respondents.
2. The short facts giving rise to this application is that the Lakhpati Devi lodged on FIR, before the Jorapokhar P.S. being Jorapokhar (Sadar Dhanbad) P.S. Case No. 204 of 1995 in which it was alleged that her husband was working in Tisco Jamadoba and has retired in August, 1993. He had received 2,25,000/-only as retiral benefit which he had deposited in the State Bank of India. The informant had brought few bricks from one Nasim Ansari for repairing of her house. Nasim Ansari told her that as her husband has retired and he has no source of income and so he may buy a truck for her so that it may run on lease basis. It is further alleged that Nasim recognised for the truck with one P.K. Mitra for a sum of Rs. 1,60,000. It is further alleged that the informant spent Rs. 1,25,000/ on repairing of the truck and gave Rs. 1,25,000 by cash and Rs. 1,00,000/- through two Bank drafts and truck started running. It is further alleged that Mr. Nasim did not buy the truck in her name and got the truck transferred in the name of brother of his wife. When the informant asked for returning the money, Nasim started giving assurance that he would return the money within a day or two but the money could not be returned and thereafter the first information was lodged. There was no allegation against the father of the petitioner but even then the father of the petitioner, namely, Jay Prakash Sharma was arrested in connection with the said case and he has brutely assaulted by the police. It is also alleged by the petitioner that prior to death of his father, one complaint was lodged by M.L.A. Jharia, namely, Abo Devi in connection with alleged beating of Yogendra Yadav, General Secretary of Janta Sharamik Sangh. In connection with the said complaint, one inquiry was also set-up and the father of the petitioner was examined as witness. The father of the petitioner had given adverse statement and as such some policemen of Jorapokhar Police
Station threatened the father of the petitioner that they will teach him a lesson. It is further alleged that the father of the petitioner was beaten by the police in the Hazat because he had given adverse statement before the inquiry committee. On 26.7.1995 the petitioner was suddenly informed that his father has died in the night of 25.7.1995 and when the petitioner asked about the reason for death of his father, no cogent explanation was given. The father of the petitioner was very healthy man before arrest and he was not suffering from any disease but due to assault by the police, he was done to death.
3. The counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2,4 and 5 has also been filed claiming therein that after the death of petitioner’s father, the respondent No. 4, the Jail Superintendent, Dhanbad, immediately informed to the authorities concerned after making inquest report and the dead body was sent for post-mortem in which the doctor found neither external nor the internal injury on the person of the deceased. The father of the petitioner never made any complaint about assault by the staff of the jail or by any of the prisoners. It is also claimed that after receiving the information from Jail Superintendent, Dhanbad, the respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad appointed Shri T. Ahmad, Executive Magistrate as inquiry officer who inquired into the matter and came to the conclusion that the petitioner’s father had died due to heart disease and mental shock. It is also stated that the father of the petitioner never complaint any pain or illness rather he took his dinner in normal way and he slept in his allotted ward with other prisoners but in the morning, he was found as dead. It is also stated that just after the death of petitioner’s father, the Jail Superintendent, Dhanbad informed the petitioner’s family members about the said death through special messenger vide Memo No. 1067, dated 27.7.1995 and on receiving the message, cousin of the deceased received the dead body after
post-mortem and other formalities and there was no complaint made on behalf of the petitioner at the relevant time and as such the application filed for compensation is fit to be dismissed.
4. Another counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 claiming therein that one Lakhpati Debi, wife of Dharam Singh gave a written report before the police alleging to the effect that one Nasim Ansari introduced the informant to deliver money for purchase of a truck in her name but after giving the money through two Bank drafts in the name of the registered owner of the truck who proposed to sell the truck. The said truck was got registered in the name of Amin, the brother of Nasim Ansari and Jay Prakash Sharma (deceased) was also in the said legal deal as owner of the truck, P.K. Mitra, Nasim and Jay Prakash Sharma as jointly committed act of cheating and taken huge money dishonestly for which Jorapokhar P.S. Case No. 294 of 2000 was registered under Section 420 of the Indian Pena) Code and deceased Jay Prakash Sharma was arrested on 14.7.1999 hi connection with the said case. It was reported by the Jail Superintendent, Dhanbad Jail on 17.8.1995 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad that Jay Prakash Sharma had died in the jail custody on previous night and there was no report about the assault or torture by the police and as such there is no material to entertain the writ application which is fit to be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner-Jay Prakash Sharma was arrested and done to death and but no viscera report has yet been submitted and the deceased was not suffering from any disease. It is also submitted that there was no allegation against the father of the petitioner but even then he was arrested by the police. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, the father of the petitioner was a member/supported of Bhartiya Janta Party and he used to actively participate
in the political moves of the said party and due to which he was falsely implicated and he was done to death at the instance of another party. It is also submitted that some policemen of Jorapokhar Police Station who were supporters of Abbo Devi, MLA and Yogendra Yadav also threatened the father of the petitioner and due to which the father of the petitioner was arrested in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No. 204 of 1995. He was actually beaten up by the police in the Hazat.
The learned counsel also relied upon a case of Ajabh Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 521 : 2000 (3) East Cr C 933 (SC), and the case of Kewal Pati v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in (1995) 3 SCC 600.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended before me that this writ application for compensation is without merit as there is no material to show that the father of the petitioner. Jay Prakash Sharma had ever been beaten up or sustained any type of injury. Actually he was arrested by the police in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No. 204 of 1995 and he died due to heart attack. It is further argued that an inquiry was held by the establishment Deputy Collector, Dhanbad, who found that tlie deceased Jay Prakash Sharma died due to heart attack or mental agony and there is no evidence whatsoever to support about the fact of assault by the police officials/Jail Staff at any point of time and as such the petition for compensation is fit to be dismissed.
7. No doubt, the father of the
petitioner. Jay Prakash Sharma was arrested in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No. 204 of 1995 on 14.7.1995 and he was remanded in the jail custody on the next day. It is also admitted position that Jay Prakash Sharma died in the night of 25.7.1995. There is no cogent material coming forward to show that Jay Prakash Sharma was ever beaten up either in the police Hazat or in the jail custody. It is
also evident from the application of the petitioner addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad that he had requested to hold inquiry about the death of his father. Inquiry was also conducted and from the inquiry report (Annexure B). It is clear that no any external or internal injury was found at the person of the deceased. It was opined by the inquiry officer that he might have died due to heart attack or by mental agony. Postmortem was also held but no external or internal wound was found by the doctor. Opinion about cause of death of the deceased was reserved pending for chemical analysis of viscera which has not been produced by either side. Thus, it is apparent that there was no external or internal injury on the person of the deceased. The inquest report (Annexure 1) also corroborates to this effect that Jay Prakash Sharma was found to be dead in natural way as no any injury was found. There appears no iota of evidence at this stage to show that Jay Prakash Sharma (deceased) was ever beaten up or assaulted in course of his custody. Nothing can be assessed only on presumption.
8. In the case of Ajabh Singh and another v. State of U.P. and Ors., (supra) post-mortem was held and case of death was shock and haemorrage due to ante-mortem injury whereas’ admittedly in the case at hand no ante-mortem injury was found in the autopsy.
9. In another case of Kewal Pati v. State of U.P., (supra) the deceased was killed by co-accused in jail and the incident occurred as a result of strict behaviour of the deceased while working as Numbar-dar in jail. The facts of this case also is different to the instant case as obviously there is no evidence that the petitioner was assaulted or killed by any police official/Jail official or co-accused as well as the doctor, who held autopsy, did not find any external or internal injury on the person of the deceased. Moreover, inquiry was also held by the Executive Magistrate and there was no otherwise circumstance indicated or found during
inquiry. It further appears from letter issued vide Memo No. 1067, dated 27.7.1995 that the Jail Superintendent, Dhanbad had sent a letter to the family members of the deceased stating about the death of Jay Prakash Sharma and to receive the dead body. Thus, there appears no material at this stage to arrive at a conclusion for assault during the period of jail custody.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the discussions made above, in my view, there is no merit in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed.
11. Writ application dismissed.
