The Court directed the State of Punjab to pay Rs. 15 lacs as compensation to the petitioner for the custodial death of his son sustained during illegal detention and torture by police officials, citing Supreme Court precedents on fundamental rights.
Directed the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs. 15 lacs to the petitioner within two months.
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-
C.W.P. No. 4273 of 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 4273 of 2003 Date of Decision: April 24, 2014
Harcharan Singh
......... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr.B.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Vandana Malhotra, Addl.AG, Punjab.
RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)
This petition was filed for directing/ordering and independent probe preferably by CBI of FIR No.311 dated 21.12.2002 registered at Police Station Jagraon District Ludhiana under Sections 342/323/304-A/34 IPC regarding illegal detention and custodial death of the petitioner's son.
On 29.12.1992 at about 4.00 p.m., a police party from CIA Staff, Jagraon alongwith other police officials raided by house of the petitioner and made enquiries about his son Sukhdarshan Singh @ Sukha. At that time, petitioner's daughter Sukhwinder Kaur @ Rani and his wife Pritam Kaur were present. The police started searching the house. At that time petitioner's brother Karnail Singh also reached there. Gurcharan Singh was also called by petitioner's daughter Rani over there. The police was saying that if Sukha was not handed over to them, they would take away Pritam Kaur and
Anju 2014.05.31 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
C.W.P. No. 4273 of 2003
Rani alongwith them, By sheer bad luck, Sukha arrived from outside and was taken away by the police in the police vehicle to police post Chauki Mann.
The petitioner alongwith other respectable of the village also reached the police post to know the whereabouts of his son. When the petitioner's brother Kartar Singh ex-Sarpanch asked the DSP as to why the petitioner's son had taken up by the police, he was abused. When the petitioner's brother Harbans Singh, member Panchayat also made enquiries, the DSP abused him also and started beating him up. After that, Sukha alongwith other relatives of petitioner were taken to CIA Staff Jagraon. Sukha was kept in one room and all others were kept in a separate room. Over there, Sukha was badly tortured by the police.
Thereafter, on 30th of December, 1992, all other relatives of the petitioner were released except Sukha. Sukha was again tortured and was released on 31st of December, 1992. At the time when Sukha was released he had to be admitted in the Dayanand Medical Hospital, Ludhiana for medical treatment where he succumbed to his injuries on 05.01.1993. The dead body was sent to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana where post mortem was conducted. The post-mortem was conducted by three doctors i.e. Dr.G.S.Randhawa, Dr.G.P.Nanda and Dr. P.K.Sikka and as per the report Annexure P-1, he died due to the injuries to vital organs which is sufficient to cause death.
Thereafter he filed Civil Writ Petition No.7211 of 1997 for
Anju 2014.05.31 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 4273 of 2003 -3-
directing the respondents for ordering an independent enquiry preferably by CBI into the illegal detention. The writ petition was disposed of on 08.12.2000 by directing the learned District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana to hold an enquiry into the matter and submitted his report dated 11.04.2001 and the final conclusion is as
under:-
“In the instant case, as discussed above, Sukhdarshan Singh alias Sukha admittedly died an unnatural death and a thorough probe by some impartial investigating agency is called for in the case. In these circumstances, the writ petition filed in the Hon'ble High Court carries some substance and the matter requires through probe by some impartial investigating agency as prayed for by the petitioner in his writ petition filed in the Hon'ble High Court.”
After the receipt of enquiry report , this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 20.07.2001 (Annexure P-2) directed respondent No.2 to appoint a Senior Officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police to investigate the matter. However, the prayer for grant of compensation was declined at that stage.
The Inspector General of Police (Zonal), Jalandhar was appointed as Inquiry Officer and gave a detailed enquiry report and thereafter an FIR No.311 dated 21.12.2002 (Annexure P-3) was registered.
The respondents have filed their respective written statements and they have admitted the facts that the FIR No.311 dated 21.12.2002 was registered against the Inspector Ajit Singh and
Anju 2014.05.31 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-4-
C.W.P. No. 4273 of 2003
Dr.Harish Luthra. After investigation, challan was presented in the Court. The allegations of the petitioner against the respondents would not be substantiated in the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed the Court today that vide judgment dated 17.02.2014, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana had acquitted Dr. Harish Luthra by giving him benefit on account of insufficeincy of evidence while convicting Sub Inspector Ajit Singh under Section 342/323/304 IPC which reproduced as under:-
“ Under Section 304 IPC :- Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Under Section 342 IPC :- Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
Under Section 323 IPC :- Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.”
While convicting him a lenient view has been taken on
the ground that he was old aged person of 73 years.
As per the opinion given in Annxure P-1 that the deceased Sukha had died due to injuries received by him on vital organs of the body. Before going through the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, the postmortem report can be examined which gives the details of the injuries on the person of
Anju 2014.05.31 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-5-
C.W.P. No. 4273 of 2003
Sukha, which reproduced as under :-
The details of the injury as per the postmortem report (Annexure P-1) cannot be thereof an accident had occurred on account of fall from scooter. Netar Singh was examined as DW2. He stated that Sukhdarshan Singh was involved in an accident which took place on 01.01.1993 at about 9/10 a.m. near canal minor on Ludhiana-Moga road could not be accepted during trial. There was no FIR registered with regard to the alleged accident. The injuries on the body of deceased Sukhdarshan Singh on the inner side of thigh could not be by fall from scooter and that too when there was no damage to the scooter. The trial Court found the presence of Netar Singh DW2 at the scene of accident was doubtful. Moreover, the nature of injuries on the body of deceased on vital organs were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Sukhdarshan Singh died on 05.01.1993 and the post mortem was conducted on
Anju 2014.05.31 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-6-
C.W.P. No. 4273 of 2003
06.01.1993. As per the judgement of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, the prosecution witness PW12 stated that the condition of Sukhdarshan Singh was deteriorated as per the injuries inflicted by blunt weapon. In Ex.PW10/B, Dr. Luthra has stated that Sukhdarshan Singh was brought in trauma to abdomen, bleeding and urinary obstruction. The version of Board of Doctors and doctor, who attended Sukhdarshan Singh in DMC Hospital shows that his condition worsened due to the injuries and later on the complications intensified and he died. The trial Court after examining the nature of injuries and the evidence held as under :-
“Cause of death was opined by Board of Doctors as shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to vital organs, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He has also opined that probable time of injury and death was about seven days between death and post mortem. Sukhdarshan Singh died on 05.01.1993. Post mortem was conducted on 06.01.1993. The injuries, thus, were stated to be inflicted on 30th or 31st December, 1992. This in fact was the date when Sukhdarshan Singh was taken into custody by the accused. The injuries sustained thereon are proved to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Apart from this Ex.PW12/A, duly proved by PW12 also shows deteriorated condition of Sukhdarshan Singh, who is stated to be victim of police torture and the injuries were stated to be inflicted by blunt weapon, but were dangerous in nature. In Ex.PW10/B, Doctor Luthra has stated that Sukhdarshan Singh was brought in trauma to abdomen, bleeding and urinary obstruction. Patient was dehydrated and his blood sugar was 200. This in fact
Anju 2014.05.31 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 4273 of 2003
-7-
was the condition of Sukhdarshan Singh on Ist January, 1993 i.e. immediately after his release from custody on 31.12.1992. The entire version of Board of Doctors and doctor who attended Sukhdarshan Singh in DMC Hospital shows that his condition worsened due to the injuries and later on the complications intensified and he died. The dehydration and trauma to abdomen reported by Dr. Luthra in Ex.PW10/B at the time of approaching for medical assistance on 01.01.1993, in fact got aggravated and on account of this only he was referred to DMC, Ludhiana. Shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to vital organs was found to be cause of his death. Such type of shock and hemorrhage could have been result of injuries inflicted during interrogation. Thus, it is held that injuries during interrogation eventually became instrumental in the death of Sukhdarshan Singh.”
However, the Board of Doctors gave the opinion that
quality of medical treatment given by physician accused Harish Luthra was satisfactory. The only flaw detected by the doctors that the patient had to be referred to Nephorology at first instance, Hence Dr. Luthra was acquitted. However, the defence could not prove the innocence of accused Ajit Singh. Sukhdarshan Singh was physically tortured when he was in custody and on his release, he was taken for medical to DMC hospital where he died on account of serious injuries on vital organs with blunt weapon on 05.01.1993.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dy.Commr.
Dharwad, Dist. Dharwad and others Vs. Shivakka and others,
2012(5) Law Herald (SC) 4114 has held that where the deceased was sole bread winner and was killed in barbaric manner in police
Anju 2014.05.31 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 4273 of 2003
-8-
custody and awarded adequate compensation of Rs.3 lacs to wife and 4 children, enhanced to Rs.10 lacs by Supreme Court.
In paragraph 12 and 13, the Supreme Court observed as
under:-
“12. The petitioner could have been relegated to the ordinary remedy of a suit if his claim to compensation was factually controversial, in the sense that a civil court may or may not have upheld his claim. But we have no doubt that if the petitioner files a suit to recover damages for his illegal detention, a decree for damages would have to be passed in that suit, though it is not possible to predicate, in the absence of evidence, the precise amount which would be decreed in his favour. In these circumstances, the refusal of this Court to pass an order of compensation in favour of the petitioner will be doing mere lip-service to his fundamental right to liberty which the State Government has so grossly violated. Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its significant content if the power of this Court were limited to passing orders to release from illegal detention. One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the payment of monetary compensation. Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant infringements of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method open to the judiciary to adopt. The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield. If civilization is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well-
Anju 2014.05.31 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 4273 of 2003
-9-
known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's rights.”
“ In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orrisa, (supra) a three-
Judge Bench while dealing with case of custodial death, held that in exercise of powers under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution, the Court can grant appropriate relief in case of deprivation of constitutional guarantee of life and personal liberty. After adverting to the decision of Privy Council in Maharaj v. Attorney-Gen-eral of Trinidad and Tobago (No.2) (1978) 2 All ER 670, Verma, J. (as his Lordship then was), observed:
“It follows that 'a claim in public law of compensation' for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the Constitution, is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection of such rights, and such a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a constitutional remedy provided for the enforcement of a fundamental right is 'distinct from, and in addition to, the remedy in private law for damages for the tort' resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right. The defence of sovereign immunity being inapplicable, and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights, there can be no question of such a defence being available in the constitutional remedy. It is this principle which justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State or its servants in the
Anju 2014.05.31 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 4273 of 2003
-10-
purported exercise of their powers, and enforcement of the fundamental right is claimed by resort to the remedy in public law under the Constitution by recourse to Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. This is what was indicated in Rudul Sah (AIR 1983 SC 1086) and is the basis of the subsequent decisions in which compensation was awarded under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, for contravention of fundamental rights.
In the present case, the petitioner was only the unmarried son of his parents. He died at an early age due to torture by the police officials while he was in custody. Petitioners would have almost be given all emotional and financial securities and they are entitled to grant of compensation.
Following the law laid down by the Supreme Court, a direction is given to the respondent to pay a compensation of Rs. 15 lacs to the petitioner within two month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and a compliance report be sent to this Court.
The writ petition is allowed with no costs.
( RITU BAHRI ) 24.04.2014 JUDGE anju
Anju 2014.05.31 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the custodial death of his son due to police torture.
Whether the High Court can award monetary compensation under Articles 32 and 226 for contravention of fundamental rights.
What amount of compensation should be awarded to the family of the deceased.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dy.Commr. Dharwad, Dist. Dharwad and others Vs. Shivakka and othersReferred¶64
Dy.Commr. Dharwad, Dist. Dharwad and others Vs. Shivakka and others, 2012(5) Law Herald (SC) 4114
Nilabati Behera v. State of OrrisaFollowed¶78
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orrisa
Maharaj v. Attorney-Gen-eral of Trinidad and Tobago (No.2)Referred¶79
Maharaj v. Attorney-Gen-eral of Trinidad and Tobago (No.2) (1978) 2 All ER 670
Rudul Sah (AIR 1983 SC 1086) · Who else cites this
Harcharan Singh
State of Punjab
RITU BAHRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
