Allowed

Mamta Rani v. State of Hy.Etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Mar 2014CWP/11782/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dealt with a writ petition where a taxi driver died in police custody while returning from a search operation. Despite the acquittal of the firing constable, the High Court held the State liable, invoking strict liability under Article 21, and awarded compensation to the widow and minor children.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the State to pay Rs. 11,41,000 as compensation along with 9% interest from the date of filing.

Mamta Rani Vs State of Hy.Etc. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

C.W.P. No. 11782 of 1996 [ 1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P. No. 11782 of 1996 Date of Decision: 20.3.2014

¶4

Mamta Rani ................................................. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Haryana and others .............. Respondents

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri

¶8

1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶9

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶10

Present: Mr. D.S.Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amrinder Vir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana.

¶12

RITU BAHRI, J.

¶13

The petitioner is seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to grant her compensation to the tune of `3 lacs on account of death of her husbandBhagwan Dass.

¶14

An application was made by one Chander Pal under Section 97 Cr.P.C. before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Panipat for issuing search warrants to secure the

¶15

Kaur Rupinder 2014.04.12 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

C.W.P. No. 11782 of 1996 [ 2 ]

¶17

person of his wife Smt. Kamlesh and his minor son Amar Pal along with Krishan Pal who had abducted them and confined them at his house at Marisajan Sahan, Railway Colony, Itawa (UP). Vide order dated 22.5.1996 the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Panipat, directed the S.H.O. Police Station, City, Panipat for search of the above said persons.

¶18

Pursuant to the above said directions a police party was formed comprising of ASI Kartar Singh (respondent No.3), Constable Gurdial Singh (respondent No.4) and another Constable namely Dalbir Singh along with one Daanvir and Chander Pal. The police party hired the taxi of Bhagwan Dass (deceased), husband of the petitioner, and in his taxi No. HR-06-4382 started for Itawa on 27.5.1996.

¶19

Krishan Pal was arrested and thereafter the police party started from Itawa. They were accompanied with Krishan Pal, the person arrested, Smt. Kamlesh and Amar Pal. When the police party reached Aligarh there was some conversation between ASI Kartar Singh-respondent No.3, Constable Gurdial Singh-respondent No.4 and Krishan Pal, the arrested person. Krishan Pal purchased few bottles of wine and cigarettes and they consumed the wine thereafter. When they came out of Aligarh, the taxi was parked at a Dhaba on G.T.Road, within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Gabhana. At the Dhaba there were hot words exchanged between ASI Kartar Singh and Constable Gurdial Singh over

¶20

Kaur Rupinder 2014.04.12 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

C.W.P. No. 11782 of 1996 [ 3 ]

¶22

`10,000/- which had been given to ASI Kartar Singh by Krishan Pal, the arrested person. During hot exchanges, Constable Gurdial Singh-respondent No.4 aimed a shot on ASI Kartar Singh-respondent No.3 with his carbine which was issued to him. ASI Kartar Singh pushed Bhagwan Dass, husband of the petitioner, and Daanvir, brother of Chander Pal, in order to save himself. The shot from the carbine hit Bhagwan Dass and Daanvir who died because of the injuries.

¶23

FIR No. 86 of 1996 under Section 304 IPC was lodged in Police Station Gabahana, District Aligarh by ASI Kartar Singh. As per the allegations in the FIR when the police party was bringing Krishan Pal, the arrested person, Smt. Kamlesh and Amar Pal the minor son, all the occupants of the taxi except Constable Gurdial Singh-respondent No.4 expressed their desire to take dinner. The taxi was stopped by Bhagwan Dass at a Dhaba. Constable Gurdial Singh was reluctant and on his persistence they take the meal in a good hotel. On refusing to do so, Gurdial Singh became angry and with his carbine shot dead Bhagwan Dass and Daanvir. The FIR is Annexure P2. After registration of the FIR, Khairati Lal, father-in-law of the petitioner, reached Police Station, Gabhana, on 30.5.1996 along with Shri Satish Sharma, ASI of Panipat. On return to Panipat, Khairati Lal met the Deputy Commissioner and made an application dated 31.5.1996 highlighting that the police party while

¶24

Kaur Rupinder 2014.04.12 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

C.W.P. No. 11782 of 1996 [ 4 ]

¶26

returning was under the influence of liquor and at a Dhaba there was exchange of hot words between ASI Kartar Singh-respondent No.3 and Constable Gurdial Singhrespondent No.4 over accepting `10,000/- by ASI Kartar Singh from Krishan Pal, the arrested person. His innocent son Bhagwan Dass and one Daanvir died when Constable Gurdial Singh opened fire from his carbine. The application is Annexure P3. The post-mortem report of Bhagwan Dass is Annexure P4. As per the X-ray report, one metallic bullet in muscles of Dara vers region of R side a level of L-3 was seen. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was due to shock and hammeherage as a result of AMI.

¶27

Smt. Kamlesh appeared before the Magistrate on 31.5.1996 and gave her statement (Annexure P5) and in her statement she mentioned that due to fear she had gone away with Krishan Pal and he took her to his house in U.P. and she sought permission to stay with her husband after returning from U.P. Her statement was sufficient to show that she was under pressure and did not relate about the incident in which Bhagwan Dass-husband of the petitioner was shot.

¶28

The petitioner is a widow with two minor issues namely Kumari Konika studying in 7^th Class and Yash Pal, minor son studying in 4^th class. She made an application on 22.6.1996 (Annexure P6) to the Chief Minister, Haryana, and

¶29

Kaur Rupinder 2014.04.12 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

C.W.P. No. 11782 of 1996 [ 5 ]

¶31

Deputy Commissioner, Panipat, that her husband was murdered by the police party. He was the only source of income so she should be given posting in some Government Girls School as Peon. She made an application for grant of `3 lacs as compensation.

¶32

The petitioner had invited Article 21 of the Constitution by filing the present petition and seeking compensation as her husband had accompanied the police party and had gone to U.P. pursuant to the search warrants issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Panipat.

¶33

On notice, a written statement has been filed by the Superintendent of Police on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 in which the factual aspect is admitted that pursuant to the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 22.5.1996 a police party had gone to U.P. in search of Smt. Kamlesh and Amar Pal. Bhagwan Dass had taken the police party in Gypsy No. HR-06-4382. It is specifically admitted that Constable Gurdial Singh did not agree to the suggestion given on the way back to have dinner at a Dhaba. In a fit of anger he fired four rounds from his carbine which hit Bhagwan Dass, driver, and Daanvir. The injured were taken to the Aligarh Medical College where they succumbed to the injuries. FIR No. 86 dated 29.5.1996 under Section 304 IPC was registered. Counsel for the respondents has placed on record the judgment dated 20.1.1999 passed by the Sr. Sub

¶34

Kaur Rupinder 2014.04.12 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶35

C.W.P. No. 11782 of 1996 [ 6 ]

¶36

Judge, Aligarh in the trial in case No. 670/97 whereby the accused has since been acquitted. This judgment is taken on record as Annexure A1. The claim of compensation is being denied on the ground that Constable Gurdial Singhrespondent No.4 had caused the death of Bhagwan Dass in his individual capacity. His act was nowhere connected with the affairs of State of Haryana in any manner. Therefore, the respondent State is not liable to pay for any individual criminal act of respondent No.4 in causing the death of Bhagwan Dass, driver of Gypsy No. HR-06-4382.

¶37

The written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 6 and 7 by S.H.O. Police Station Gobhana, District Aligarh (U.P.) is that the FIR was registered on the statement made by ASI Kartar Singh and there was no mala fide on the part of the then S.H.O. to register the case under Section 304 instead of under Section 302 IPC. Since the trial has now concluded the responsibility of respondents No.6 and 7 does not survive.

¶38

In the written statement filed by respondent No.4Constable Gurdial Singh states that he has been falsely implicated in the conspiracy hatched by ASI Kartar Singh, who is the main culprit responsible for the death of Bhagwan Dass and Daanvir. After registration of the FIR, during the course of investigation by the police authorities of Gobhana, report was called from the Forensic Science Laboratory,

¶39

Kaur Rupinder 2014.04.12 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶40

C.W.P. No. 11782 of 1996 [ 7 ]

¶41

Agra, to find out whether the bullets recovered from the bodies of deceased Bhagwan Dass and Daanvir were fired from Carbine No. 15215396. As per the detailed report dated 29.8.1996 by one Shri Ramesh Kumar Rawat Scientific Officer of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra, (Annexure R4/2) the bullets recovered from the bodies of the deceased were not fired from the service Carbine of the respondent. This report shows that the respondent-Constable Gurdial Singh has been falsely involved in the said occurrence. The respondent was granted bail by the High Court at Allahabad vide order dated 13.1.1997 (Annexure R4/3). The main culprit was ASI Kartar Singh.

¶42

After hearing counsel for the parties the question for consideration before this Court is – Whether Bhagwan Dass, husband of the petitioner-Mamta Rani was died while he had been hired by the Haryana Police for complying with the search warrants' order dated 22.5.1996 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate?

¶43

It is not disputed by respondents No. 1 and 2 that Bhagwan Dass has died on his way back from Aligarh to Panipat in the company of ASI Kartar Singh and Constable Gurmail Singh along with Krishan Pal, Smt. Kamlesh and minor son Amar Pal. Bhagwan Dass and Daanvir had suffered bullet injuries and they thereafter died at the Government Medical College, Aligarh. Post-mortem report

¶44

Kaur Rupinder 2014.04.12 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶45

C.W.P. No. 11782 of 1996 [ 8 ]

¶46

(Annexure P4) further establishes that the occurrence had taken place in the manner so stated in the FIR.

¶47

Even though, respondent No.4 has been acquitted by the trial Court at Aligarh vide judgment dated 20.1.1999, the question for consideration is – Whether the petitioner is liable to be paid compensation by the State while her husband was performing the duties as assigned by the respondents?

¶48

Reference can be made to a Supreme Court judgment in D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal 1997IAD S.C. 180 where in a case of custodial death a claim for compensation was entertained in a petition under Section 226 of the Constitution. It was held that grant of compensation for violation of fundamental rights granted under Article 21 was an exercise of Courts under the public law jurisdiction for penalising the wrong doer and fixing the liability for public wrong on the State which failed in discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. In paragraph 45 of this judgment, the Supreme Court observed as under:-

¶49

“45. The claim in public law for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty, the protection of which is guaranteed under the Constitution is a claim based on strict liability and is in addition to the

¶50

Kaur Rupinder 2014.04.12 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶51

C.W.P. No. 11782 of 1996 [ 9 ]

¶52

claim available in private law for damages for tortious acts of the public servants. Public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. Award of compensation for established infringement of the indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and preserved. Grant of compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India for the established violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21, is an exercise of the Courts under the public law jurisdiction for penalising the wrong doer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen.”

¶53

The petitioner's husband was a taxi driver and was owner of Vehicle No. HR-06-4382. As per the Post-mortem report (Annexure P4) the age of the deceased Bhagwan Dass was about 30 years. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport

¶54

Kaur Rupinder 2014.04.12 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶55

C.W.P. No. 11782 of 1996 [ 10 ]

¶56

Corporation and another 2009(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 77 a multiplier of 17 will be applicable for assessing the compensation. Being a skilled labour his income can be taken to be 4,000/- per month as on 28.5.1996. Giving an increase of 50% of this amount his income will be treated to be 6,000/- per month. As per the petition, he left behind his widow and two minor children. After deducting 1/3^rd from his monthly income on account of personal expenses, his dependency would come to `4,000/- per month.

¶57

The Supreme Court recently in the judgment of Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 2013 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 170 has awarded 25,000/- as funeral expenses, 1,00,000/- each to the dependents i.e. widow and minor children towards love and affection.

¶58

In view of the above, the compensation is to be assessed as under:-

¶59

*S.No.*	*Heads*	*Calculation*
(i)	Salary	`4,000.00 per month
(ii)	50% of (i) above to be added as future prospects=	`4,000.00+` 2,000.00 = `6000.00 per month
(iii)	1/3^rdof (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased =	`6000.00 -` 2000.00 = `4000.00 per month
(iv)	Compensation after multiplier of 17 is applied =	`4,000.00 x 12 x 17 =<br>`8,16,000.00
(v)	Loss of consortium =	` 1,00,000.00
(vi)	Loss of love, care and guidance for minor children @ `1 lac each =	` 2,00,000.00
(vii)	Funeral expenses =	` 25,000.00
	TOTAL COMPENSATION =	`11,41,000.00

¶60

The petition is allowed and a direction is given to

¶61

Kaur Rupinderthe respondent No.1 to give compensation of `11,41,000/2014.04.12 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶62

[ 11 ]

¶63

C.W.P. No. 11782 of 1996

¶64

along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of this petition till realization to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and a compliance report be sent to this Court.

¶65

( RITU BAHRI ) 20.3.2014 JUDGE rupi

¶66

Kaur Rupinder 2014.04.12 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Mamta Rani v. State of Hy.Etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Rani v. State of Hy.Etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Tejpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Baba Naga Overseas Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

State of Haryana and Ors. Vs M/S Gupta and Company and Anr.

Jalandhar Rubber Goods Vs Pseb

M/S Shakti Trading Vs Pseb