Dismissed

Baburao Dattoji Kendre v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC17 Jul 2013WP/193/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition seeking investigation by an independent agency and compensation for the custodial death of the petitioner's son. The Court found that the police took diligent steps to transport the deceased to the nearest hospital as advised by medical officers and found no evidence of negligence warranting compensation under writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Rule discharged; No compensation directed.

Baburao Dattoji Kendre Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 crwp 193 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No.193 of 2013

¶4

***** Baburao s/o Dattoji Kendre Age 55 years, Occupation : Medical Practitioner, R/o Salna, Taluka Aundha (Nagnath) District Hingoli. .. Petitioner. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Police Station Officer, Police Station Aundha (Nagnath), Taluka Aundha (Na), District Hingoli. 3) The Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, District Hingoli. .. Respondents. -------Shri. Mahesh P. Kale, Advocate, for the petitioner. Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶5

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ. Judgment reserved on : 25^th June 2013 Judgment pronounced on : 17^th July 2013.

¶6

2 crwp 193 of 2013

¶7

JUDGMENT: (Per Naresh H Patil, J.)

¶8

Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

¶9

consent.

¶10

The petitioner prays for following reliefs :

¶11

“(C) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or directions in the like nature the investigation of the custodial death of the son of the petitioner namely Rajesh Baburao Kendre may kindly be conducted through an independent agency under the direct supervision of this Hon’ble Court.

¶12

(D) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or directions in the like nature the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner for custodial death of son of the petitioner namely Rajesh Baburao Kendre who was of young age and was only son of the petitioner and was having bright future.”

¶13

The petitioner contends that consequent to the

¶14

registration of Crime No.56/2012 in the Police Station Aundha, Taluka Aundha Nagnath, District Hingoli for an offence punishable section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, his deceased son–Rajesh Baburao Kendre was arrested by police. The crime was registered on 1-9-2012. The son of the petitioner was arrested on 2-9-2012 at 9.00 am. He was produced before the Judicial

¶15

3 crwp 193 of 2013

¶16

Magistrate at 7.30 p.m. The Magistrate granted two days police custody. The petitioner alleges that between the night of 2-9-2012 and 3-9-2012 when the son of the petitioner was in police custody the police tortured the son of the petitioner and the other accused persons. His son was assaulted by the police with stick. The petitioner’s son informed the police that he was suffering from blood pressure and heart disease. But still the police continued to assault and ill-treat him. It is alleged that petitioner's son suffered minor heart attack at about 9.00 to 9.30 p.m. He became unconscious and thereafter the police took him to hospital at Aundha. As there was no facility for treatment the police shifted him to Civil Hospital at Hingoli at 10.30 p.m. The doctor at the Civil Hospital advised the police to admit the son of the petitioner in Government Hospital, Nanded. The police had taken the deceased Rajesh to Nanded via Aundha in a police jeep. There was delay in taking the deceased to the hospital at Nanded due to which the condition of the deceased Rajesh got worsened. The police instead of taking a short route spent unnecessary time which further deteriorated the condition of the deceased Rajesh. The deceased Rajesh

¶17

4 crwp 193 of 2013

¶18

was provided with medical treatment no sooner he was admitted in the Civil Hospital at Nanded at about 2.00 a.m. During treatment he died at 5.30 a.m. The cause of death was mentioned by the doctor as heart attack. Post mortem was conducted on 3-9-2012 between 4.15 p.m. and 6.15 p.m.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the son of the petitioner was a young boy of 26 years. He was having interests in social work. He was active worker of Shiv Sena party in Aundha Taluka. He was Taluka President of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena. He had a bright career. After the death of the son of the petitioner, the family became helpless as there is nobody to look after them. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the son of the petitioner was in police custody. The death was caused due to negligence of police and therefore adequate compensation is required to be granted.

¶20

Respondent No.2 filed affidavit-in-reply. It was contended by the deponent in para 4 :--

¶21

5 crwp 193 of 2013

¶22

“4. It is submitted that accused Raju @ Rajesh Kendre R/o Salna, on 2-9-2012 at about 22.20 hours informed that he is not keeping well and he had vomiting. Hence he was taken for medial treatment at Government Hospital, Aundha Nagnath. The Medical Officer present at the medical hospital examined him, given medical treatment and then refereed him to Government Hospital at Hingoli. The copy of the letter dated 2-9-2012 of the Medical Officer is annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit R-1. Hence accused Raju was taken by police jeep to Hingoli at about 23.40 (11.40 pm). Medical Officer at Hingoli Government Hospital further referred accused Raju and advised to take him at Nanded Government hospital. Accordingly accused Raju was taken by police jeep to Nanded Government Hospital. Meanwhile father of Raju, present Petitioner was also informed that as Raju was suffering from vomiting and as he has been referred at Nanded Hospital, father was also called to accompany us. The Petitioner was informed to remain present at Jintur T point. It is submitted that at that time along with me one police constable Shri. Ingole B.N.943 was also present. Accused Raju was put on Saline in the jeep itself. When we reached at Jintur T point father of Raju i.e. present Petitioner and one more person were also taken in the said jeep and at about 00.30 hours jeep started towards Nanded. At that time accused Raju was talking with his father.”

¶23

A further affidavit was filed by Hasan Baksu Patel, Deputy Superintendent of Police, State Criminal Investigation Department, Hingoli. The deponent contended that according to the report the death was caused due to “acute myocardial infarction with coronary artery disease”.

¶24

6 crwp 193 of 2013

¶25

We have perused the statement of Dr. Chandak recorded on 19-1-2013 and the communication made by Dr. Chandak to the Deputy Superintendent of police on 19^th January 2013.

¶26

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents submitted that the police took necessary care. No sooner it was disclosed that the son of the petitioner was having heart problem and required treatment, he was admitted in the hospital which was equipped with necessary facilities. The police by taking prompt action took the deceased Rajesh in police jeep from Aundha to Hingoli and on advice of the doctor proceeded to Nanded by the shortest available route. There was no delay in taking the deceased from Hingoli to Nanded. The distance from Hingoli to Nanded is about 100 Kms and the police had taken nearest way. The petitioner/father of the deceased was in the same jeep. The deceased was talking to his father. He was admitted in the hospital and immediately the doctor started giving treatment to him. It was submitted that the deceased or his father did not disclose the fact that the deceased had

¶27

7 crwp 193 of 2013

¶28

suffered two heart attacks earlier prior to his arrest.

¶29

According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as the police took due care of the deceased and did whatever possible, there is no case made out to award compensation under writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶30

We have perused the record placed before us and considered the submissions advanced. The basic facts are not denied by the parties that, the deceased son of the petitioner was arrested in connection with a crime, that after his arrest he complained of heart ailment and he was taken to the hospital at Aundha, that on doctor’s advice he was shifted to Hingoli and from there to Nanded.

¶31

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the police ought to have taken the deceased in an ambulance so that adequate medical care could have been provided to the son of the petitioner. On behalf of the State it was submitted that it was midnight hours and considering the condition of the deceased, on

¶32

8 crwp 193 of 2013

¶33

medical advice, the deceased was to be shifted as soon as possible to the nearest medical centre and in stead of wasting time in search of ambulance or any other vehicle, the police decided to provide him basic treatment in the police jeep itself and took him to Nanded as advised by the doctor.

¶34

We find substance in the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in respect of prompt steps taken by the police. The father of the deceased, the petitioner, himself was present all along in the jeep with his son. There is nothing on record to show that the father of the deceased made efforts to take services of Government or private ambulance for carrying his son to Nanded.

¶35

In the facts of the matter we find that the police had taken diligent steps to carry the deceased in police jeep along with father of the deceased to the nearest hospital at Nanded as advised by the medical officers. From the available material we do not find that the police was negligent in taking appropriate steps. From the

¶36

9 crwp 193 of 2013

¶37

entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction to direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner.

¶38

There is no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.

¶39

Sd/- Sd/- (A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)

¶40

rsl

Baburao Dattoji Kendre v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baburao Dattoji Kendre v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Limbaji Raghunath Salgar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Javed Raju Pathan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ajit Lakhamichand Bothra Vs Mangala Sharad Mutha and Ors.

Vinaya Shrikant Bansod and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashok Shivram Karde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajaram Shripati Banduke, C.No. 7147 Vs the State of Mah