Dismissed¶26

U O I Through Assistant Security Commissioner Prosecution East Central Railway v. National Human Rights Commission and Ors.

Jharkhand HC10 Sept 2024WPC/5974/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; W.P.(C) No.5974 of 2015; decided 10th September, 2024; Rajesh Kumar, J.; writ petition against NHRC order dated 18.05.2015; National Human Rights Commission compensation; Railway Board directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- monetary relief to Sangeeta Devi; death of Sanjay Kumar; alleged molestation and assault by RPF personnel; FIR No.21/2008 PS Barkakana Rail; CB CID investigation; found guilty u/s 354/306/34 IPC; post-mortem external injuries (swelling and bruises on head); conflicting reports; compensation not released; writ petition dismissed; pending IA disposed of.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the writ petition was dismissed and the pending interlocutory application, if any, was disposed of. ¶26

U O I Through Assistant Security Commissioner Prosecution East Central Railway Vs National Human Rights Commission and Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.5974 of 2015

¶2

U.O.I Through Mr. A. K. Prit, S/o Late A. N. Krishnan, Assistant Security Commissioner (Prosecution), East Central Railway, Hajipur. …… Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

National Human Rights Commission, Manav adhikar Bhawan, block c-complex, P.O., P.S & District New Delhi.

¶5

Sangeeta Devi W/o Late Sanjay Kumar, Kund Mohalla, P.O. Kund Mohalla & P.S. Daltonganj (Medini Nagar) Town, Distt, Palamau - 822101

¶6

I.G., CID (Crm branch) Police, PO + PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.

¶7

S. P. Railway Dhanbad PO + PS Dhanbad, Dist Dhanbad.

¶8

State of Jharkhand. …... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C to A.S.G.I Mr. Kumar Swapnil, A.C to A.S.G.I For the Resp. No.1 : Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate For the Resp. No.2 : Mrs. Saumya Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Sweta Shukla, Advocate

¶11

12/Dated: 10th September, 2024

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 18.05.2015 (Annexure – I) passed by the National Human Rights Commission, whereby Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs) compensation has been awarded in favour of the respondent No.2.

¶14

3. It appears that a complaint has been made before the National Human Rights Commission and the National Human Rights Commission has passed the impugned order dated 18.05.2015. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 18.05.2015 reads as under :-

¶15

“ -------------

¶16

The contention urged by Railway Board in its communication dated 15.10.2014 is totally untenable. As stated above, FIR No.21/2008 PS Barkakana Rail relating to the incident was investigated by CB CID in pursuance of the directions of the Commission and IG CB CID, Jharkhand informed the Commission vide letter dated 29.2.2012 that Head Constable Timbu Oraon, Head Constable M. Z. Hussain, Constable

¶17

- 1 - W.P.(C) No.5974 of 2015

¶18

Mrityunjaya Kumar and Constable Ram Daval Rai were found guilty u/s 354/306/34 IPC and warrants of arrest had been issued against them. Not only this, SP Rail, Dhanbad also confirmed vide letter dated 22.9.2012 that the said four personnel of RPF had been found guilty u/s 354/306/34 IPC. Since the four officials of RPF were found guilty in inquiry by the CB CID and also by SP GRP. Dhanbad, how can the Railway Board now say that they were innocent? The statement of DIG, Railway Safety in the communication dated 15.10.2014 is also factually incorrect because external injury in the form of swelling and bruises on the head were mentioned in the post-mortem report in these circumstances, the Commission is prima-facie convinced that the RPF personnel had molested Sangeeta Devi and when her husband Sanjay Kumar protested, he was assaulted by them and later on succumbed to the injuries inflicted by them. The Railways must compensate Sangeeta Devi for the death of her husband and violation of her dignity. The Commission, therefore, recommends to the Railway Board to pay a sum of Rs. Five lakhs as monetary relief to Sangeeta Davi.

¶19

Chairman, Railway Board shall submit compliance report with proof of payment within eight weeks.

¶20

It is therefore, requested that the compliance report in the matter be sent to the Commission latest by 09/07/2015, so that the same could be placed before the Commission.”

¶21

(emphasis supplied)

¶22

4. Thus, the National Human Rights Commission has applied its mind and it has found that there is external injuries and there is allegation of assault also.

¶23

Considering the above factum, meager amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation has been awarded, which has not yet been released in favour of the respondent No.2.

¶24

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are two conflicting reports. One report is in favour of the authority.

¶25

6. Be that as it may. In one of the reports, it has been found that there is external injuries. The National Human Rights Commission has applied its mind after perusing both the reports.

¶26

7. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order dated 18.05.2015, passed by the National Human Rights Commission. Accordingly, the present writ petition is, hereby, dismissed.

¶27

8. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶28

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶29

Chandan/-

¶30

- 2 - W.P.(C) No.5974 of 2015

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 18.05.2015 (Annexure-I) of the National Human Rights Commission recommending the Railway Board to pay Rs.5,00,000/- monetary relief to respondent No.2 (Sangeeta Devi) and directing submission of a compliance report with proof of payment within eight weeks.¶13
National Human Rights Commission · 18.05.2015
Prior proceeding
A complaint was made before the National Human Rights Commission, which passed the impugned order dated 18.05.2015.¶14
Prior proceeding
FIR No.21/2008 PS Barkakana Rail relating to the incident was investigated by CB CID in pursuance of the directions of the NHRC.¶16
Prior proceeding
IG CB CID, Jharkhand informed the Commission vide letter dated 29.2.2012 that Head Constable Timbu Oraon, Head Constable M. Z. Hussain, Constable Mrityunjaya Kumar and Constable Ram Daval Rai were found guilty u/s 354/306/34 IPC and warrants of arrest had been issued against them.¶18
Prior proceeding
SP Rail, Dhanbad confirmed vide letter dated 22.9.2012 that the said four RPF personnel had been found guilty u/s 354/306/34 IPC.¶18
Prior proceeding
Railway Board, by communication dated 15.10.2014, contended the personnel were innocent; the NHRC held the contention untenable and the statement of DIG, Railway Safety factually incorrect.¶16
Prior proceeding
External injury in the form of swelling and bruises on the head was mentioned in the post-mortem report.¶18
Prior proceeding
The NHRC was prima facie convinced that the RPF personnel had molested Sangeeta Devi and, when her husband Sanjay Kumar protested, he was assaulted by them and later succumbed to the injuries.¶18
Prior proceeding
The NHRC recommended the Railway Board pay Rs. Five lakhs as monetary relief to Sangeeta Devi and directed the Chairman, Railway Board to submit a compliance report with proof of payment within eight weeks.¶19
Prior proceeding
The Rs.5,00,000/- compensation awarded had not yet been released in favour of respondent No.2.¶23

U O I Through Assistant Security Commissioner Prosecution East Central Railway v. National Human Rights Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U O I Through Assistant Security Commissioner Prosecution East Central Railway v. National Human Rights Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Branch Manager Cholamandalam M/S General Insurance Company through Its Dy Manager Prafull Choudhary Vs Lal Banu Bibi

Ritlal Prasad Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Subrano Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Vs Gita Devi

Ms Salvel Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Sales Manager Mr Kingsukh Ghoshal Vs Urban Development Department

Ram Bijay Singh and Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.