ORDER
Anil Dev Singh, J.
1. This is a petition whereby the petitioners claim compensation from the respondents on account of the death of Sonu, husband of the first petitioner and son of the second petitioner, in police custody. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :-
One Deepak alias Deepu, an accused in case FIR No. 364/96 under Sections 24/54/59 of the Arms Act, escaped from the custody of the police party belonging to police station Sarojini Nagar. A case FIR No. 374/96 under Section 224, IPC was registered against him at Police Station Sarojini Nagar. It is not disputed that police party belonging to Police Station Sarojini Nagar picked up deceased Sonu, brother of accused Deepak, on August 29, 1996. On the next day, viz., August 30,1996 the dead body of Sonu was brought to the casualty of Safdarjung Hospital by the staff of Police Station Sarojini Nagar. The body bore fifty-one injuries. These facts are not denied by the respondents. Rather they have been admitted in the counter-affidavit. The relevant paras of the counter-affidavit read as follows :-
While conducting the search for accused Deepak alias Deepu, the police party also brought Sonu (deceased) brother of Deepak to the police station, who died in police custody. The dead. body of Sonu as left at the casualty of Safdarjang Hospital by the staff of police station Sarojini Nagar
XX XX XX
The contents of para 7 of the petition as stated are admitted to the extent that the husband of the petitioner was having 51 injuries on his body as per post mortem report No. 866/96 of All India Institute of Medical Sciences and on account of these injuries and his death a case FIR 375/96 under Section 304 I.P.C., P. S. Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, was registered and respondents 3 to 10 have been arrested and challaned in the case .
XX XX XX ... S.D.M. Huaz Khas Shri K. K. Dahiya had conducted the enquiry and prima facie held responsible respondents 3 to 10 for the death of the husband of petitioner No. 1.
2. Thus, it is clear from the above that Sonu, who was brought to the police station, died in police custody. His dead body bore extensive tell tale injuries as per the post-mortem report of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. From the counter-affidavit it also appears that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Hauz Khas, New Delhi, had conducted an enquiry into the cause of death of Sonu and prima facie came to the conclusion that respondents 3 to 10 were responsible for his death. FIR No. 375/96 under Section 304, I.P.C., P. S. Sarojini Nagar, was registered against respondents 3 to 10. They were arrested and challaned in the case.
3. It is significant to note that Sonu was not accused of having committed any offence, yet he was picked up by the men in uniform who later brought him dead to the Safdarjang Hospital with fifty-one injuries on his body. There is no justification nor any has been put forth in the counter-affidavit for what happened to him.
4. Such incidents strike at the very foundation of rule of law. Deprivation of life without due process of law is banned and barred under Article 21 of the Constitution. Yet such incidents take place. Those who think that they can detect and eradicate crime by resorting to crime are in fact stoking the fire which they want to extinguish. The Police can surely interrogate a person accused of an offence, but it cannot torture him to extract information otherwise tyranny will replace law. Despite several judgments by the Apex Court including Saheli, a Women’s Resources Centre, through Ms. Nalini Bhanot v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters and the High Courts, the force is preferred to scientific methods to elicit information. This must stop. The State cannot claim sovereign immunity for the tortious act of public servants leading to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in the path breaking case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal laid down several safeguards for the detainees. It also considered the question of claim in public law for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty. In this regard it was held as follows:-
Thus, to sum up, it is now a well accepted proposition in most of the jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the defense of sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must receive the amount of compensation from the State, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrong doer. In the assessment of compensation, the emphasis has to be on the compensatory and not on punitive element. The objective is to apply balm to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or the offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offence (irrespective of compensation) must be left to the criminal Courts in which the offender is prosecuted, which the State, in law, is duty bound to do. The award of compensation in the public law jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other action like civil suit for damages which is lawfully available to the victim or the heirs of the deceased victim with respect to the same matter for the tortious act committed by the functionaries of the State. The quantum of compensation will, of course, depend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be evolved in that behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for the established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under the public law jurisdiction is, thus, in addition to the traditional remedies and not in derogation of them. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Court and paid by the State to redress the wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted against any amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil suit.
5. In Mrs. Sudha Rasheed v. Union of India 1995 (1) SCALE 77, the Supreme Court granted a compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- to the relatives of an Advocate who had died in police custody. This Court in Nasiruddin v. State (Criminal Writ No. 585 of 1996, decided on December 16,1997), while relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (supra), granted monetary compensation to the father of an accused who died in Tihar Jail as a result of sixteen injuries which were found on his person. In Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration through the Lt. Governor 1996 (38) DRJ 203 : 1996 AIHC 5644) this Court while determining the scope and width of Article 21 of the Constitution held as follows:
Personal liberty is fundamental to the functioning of our democracy. The lofty purpose of Article 21 would be defeated if the State does not take adequate measures for securing compliance with the same. The State has to control and curb the male file propensities of those who threaten life and liberty of others. It must shape the society so that the life and liberty of an individual is safe and is given supreme importance and value. It is for the State to ensure that persons live and behave like and are treated as human beings. Article 21 is a great landmark of human liberty and it should serve its purpose of ensuring the human dignity, human survival and human development. The State must strive to give a new vision and peaceful future to its people where they can co-operate, coordinate and co-exist with each other so that full protection of Article 21 is ensured and realised. Article 21 is not a mere platitude or dead letter lying dormant, decomposed, dissipated and inert. It is rather a pulsating reality throbbing with life and spirit of liberty, and it must be made to reach out to every individual within the country. It is the duty and obligation of the State to enforce law and order and to maintain public order so that the fruits of democracy can be enjoyed by all sections of the society irrespective of their religion, caste, creed, colour, region and language. Article 21 is an instrument and a device to attain the goal of freedom of an individual from deprivation and oppression and its violation cannot and must not be tolerated or condoned. Preamble to the Constitution clearly indicates that justice, liberty and equality must be secured to all citizens. Besides, it mandates the State to promote fraternity among the people, ensuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation. Article 38 of the Constitution also requires the State to promote welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order in which justice – social, economic and political, shall inform all institutions of the national life. These are the goals set by the Constitution, and Article 21 and other fundamental rights are the means by which those goals are to be attained. Therefore, it becomes the responsibility and avowed duty of the State to adopt means and methods in order to realise the chershed aims.
xx xx xx The conduct of any person or group of persons has to be controlled by the State for the lofty purpose enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. ... 6. One is dismayed to find that even though a telegram was sent by the petitioners to the Commissioner of Police regarding the illegal detention of Sonu at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, no action was taken. A timely intervention could have saved his life.
7. In view of the above discussion I consider it to be an imminently fit case for grant of compensation to the petitioners. While granting compensation it must be kept in view that Sonu, a young man of 22 years of age, was picked up by the police even though there was no allegation of his involvement in any criminal activity. It is not the case of the respondents that when he was arrested he was having injuries on his person. No explanation has been rendered for fifty-one injuries which were found on his person as a result of which he died in police custody. It must also be taken into consideration that despite several judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, the State has not been able to prevent custodial deaths. Torture is still preferred to scientific techniques for the purposes of eliciting information from accused and witnesses.
8. In the circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to direct respondents 1 and 2 to pay a Sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- to the petitioners as compensation for the custodial death of Sonu. It will be open to respondents 1 and 2 to locate the responsibility for the incident and recover the amount from the persons who may have been responsible for the same. The amount shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks.
9. The petition stands disposed of.