The Court held the State liable for compensation awarded to the family of a deceased jail inmate killed by a co-prisoner, finding a total failure of security and violation of the Prisons Act.
Compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs awarded to the petitioner with 6% interest per annum on delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
CWP No.5939 of 1994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CWP No.5939 of 1994 Date of decision: October 12, 2012
Amandeep .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & another
........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. P.P.S. Duggall,Advocate, with Mr. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Munish Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab, for the respondents.
R.P. NAGRATH, J.
The petitioner, a minor son of Surinder Mohan (deceased), was about 11/12 years old when this petition was filed in the year 1994. He has thus attained majority long ago. He invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India through his grandmother as next friend, on account of death of his father taking place while undergoing life imprisonment in Central Jail, Ferozepur.
-2-
CWP No.5939 of 1994
13.08.1990, P.S. Guruharsahai. According to the petitioner, his father was murdered while in custody in the Central Jail, Ferozepur on the night of 25/26.09.1993. There were injuries on the head and other parts of body of Surinder Mohan. The petitioner was not aware about the manner in which his father suffered injuries and killed, but it was apprehended that he was murdered by the Jail Authorities or suffered injuries due to torture by the police or murdered in conspiracy with the Jail Authorities. Nothing untoward can otherwise happen without notice of Jail Authorities. Even immediate medical aid was not provided to the deceased. The deceased was in serious condition. His family members took him to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur and then to Medical College, Faridkot from where he was referred to CMC Ludhiana. However, the escort party took Surinder Mohan first to the Central Jail, Ludhiana instead taking him straight to the Hospital. Due to delay in providing medical aid, Surinder Mohan succumbed to the injuries on reaching CMC Ludhiana. 3. It is the version of petitioner that the State and its functionaries owed a duty to protect the life of the jail inmates. Otherwise, the Central Jail, Ferozepur is a high security jail and there is day and night watch duty inside and outside the jail. There is a provisions of 'Alarm' in case of emergency. The prayer was, therefore made for
award of compensation on account of cutting short the life of Surinder Mohan while in Jail custody. Surinder Mohan was 32/33 years old and a teacher by profession and earning about ` 3000/- per month.
CWP No.5939 of 1994 -3-
FIR No. 162 dated 17.05.1993 for offences under Sections 302, 449 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, 1959. During the night of 25/26.09.1993 at about 3.45 a.m., Gurbachan Singh aforesaid hit Surinder Mohan who was lying asleep, with a steel chair on his head. Some other jail inmates caught hold of Gurbachan Singh and the security staff of the jail also reached there. It is admitted that Surinder Mohan ultimately died at 05.30 p.m. on 26.09.1993 at CMC, Ludhiana. It is, therefore, contended that the State is not liable to pay compensation, as there was no negligence on the part of the State/Jail Authorities in the performance of its duties. The necessary steps were promptly taken to save the life of the deceased by providing medical aid. In fact, an FIR dated 26.09.1993 for offence under Section 302 IPC was registered against Gurbachan Singh for committing murder of Surinder Mohan.
CWP No.5939 of 1994 -4-
this regard, received vide letter No. 1384 dated 10.07.2012 has been taken on record.
“ Roster of officers for duty. Beat at night to be changed.
Record to be kept - (1) A roster showing the turns of day duty of each warder and convict-warder shall be prepared every week, in advance, by or under the orders of the Deputy
CWP No.5939 of 1994
-5-
Superintendent and posted up in some prominent and accessible place. All subsequent changes of duty of officers on the roster should be noted thereon.
(2) No officer should be placed on the same beat two nights in succession, nor informed of his beat till he is about to be posted. A record shall be kept showing the officer put on each beat during each watch.”
“every ward or compartment in which prisoners are confined shall be patrolled inside by convict-officers who should be changed daily and relieved at the time the patrolling officer is changed. A roster showing the names of the prisoners told off to patrol each ward with the hours of duty shall be kept. The patrolling officer shall satisfy himself that the convictwatch inside the ward is changed at the time the patrolling officer is relieved. When exceptional precautions are necessary or a ward is of unusual length, two or more convict-officers may be placed on duty at one time, each being allotted a definite beat. Convict-officers whilst on duty shall patrol their wards, prevent, as far as lies in their power, the commission of any breach of jail discipline, satisfy themselves by frequent counting that the prisoners are all present and intimate the fact to the outside patrol at least once every fifteen minutes. At each change of watch the relieving convict-officer shall report to the patrolling officer
CWP No.5939 of 1994
-6-
the number of prisoners present; in case of any unusual occurrence, he shall give immediate notice to the patrolling officer to take any action that may be necessary. ”
CWP No.5939 of 1994 -7-
jail. Punctually at the hour for the relief of the guard, the head warder or senior warder who is to take the next watch shall bring in the relieving warders. He shall search them between the gates both on entering and leaving the jail. This search should be personally conducted at least once a week by the Deputy or Assistant Superintendent. In large jails the Superintendent may, to save time, arrange for the relief of the guard in two places simultaneously.
SCC 600, the deceased was a convict and working as Nambardar in the Jail. He was strict in maintaining discipline amongst the co-accused. It was due to this strictness in his behaviour as Nambardar, that he was attacked and killed by a co-accused. It was held that even though the victim was a convict and serving his sentence yet the authorities were not absolved of their responsibility to ensure his life and safety in the jail. The prisoner does not cease to have his constitutional right except to the extent he has been deprived of it in accordance with law. He was entitled to the protection. Since the killing took place when he was in jail, it resulted in deprivation of his life contrary to law. It was held that his untimely death deprived his family of his company and affection. Since it has taken place while he was serving his sentence due to failure of
CWP No.5939 of 1994 -8-
authorities to protect him, they were entitled to be compensated.
CWP No.5939 of 1994
-9-
possibility of a prisoner, who was lying asleep at night being killed by coprisoner by hitting him with a steel chair.
this Act with respect to the separation of prisoners are as follows:-
(3) unconvicted criminal prisoners shall be kept apart from convicted criminal prisoners; and
Therefore, there was blatant violation of the above provision of the Prisons Act, 1894 for which any kind of justification cannot be accepted. 20. The State cannot oppose and choke the voice of a person solely on the ground that he was suffering imprisonment. There may be unruly elements in jail but they cannot be allowed to become unruly and granted licence to kill another, may be out of vengeance or may be for reasons best known to them. When the duty of the State comes into play, it amounts to violation of the human rights.
CWP No.5939 of 1994 -10-
compensation for the wrong committed by the State through its functionaries in protecting the life of Surinder Mohan, deceased, while in prison.
2000/- per month. It is stated that the mother of the petitioner, died while he was just about 1¼ years old. Since petitioner was the only dependent of Surinder Mohan, half of the income would have been incurred by him on his personal expenditure. So an amount of 1,000/per month could be assessed as loss of dependency and annual dependency would come to ` 12,000/-. The incident took place about 19 years ago and some amount must be added towards interest as the decision has been delayed.CWP No.5939 of 1994
-11-
1 lac was awarded as compensation. This court in **_<u>Joginder Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others, 1996 ACJ 193,</u>_** awarded an amount of 1,50,000/- on account of the death of convict while in the jail. That was pertaining to the incident which took place on 16.08.1991.Allowed in above terms.
October 12, 2012 ( R.P. NAGRATH ) jk JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the State is liable to pay compensation for the death of a jail inmate killed by a co-prisoner due to security lapse.
Whether the separation of unconvicted and convicted prisoners under the Prisons Act was violated.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kewal Pati v. State of U.P.Relied on¶48
Kewal Pati (Smt.) V. State of U.P. and others, (1995) 3 SCC 600 · Who else cites this
Court on its own Motion v. StateRelied on¶52
Court on its own Motion vs. State and another, 2011 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 249
Malti Devi v. State of BiharRelied on¶53
Malti Devi vs. State of Bihar, 2011(6) R.C.R. (Criminal) 433
Court on its own Motion v. State of PunjabDistinguished¶66
Court on its own Motion v. State of Punjab, 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 790
Joginder Kaur v. State of PunjabReferred¶70
Joginder Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others, 1996 ACJ 193
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Amandeep
State of Punjab
R.P. NAGRATH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court