Observing that “the agencies and instrumentalities of the state cannot be obviated of their obligation to ensure protection of life and liberty of an individual when he is confined to prison/jail under the orders of a court”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has awarded a compensation of Rs 6.14 lakh to the kin of an undertrial, who was killed while being brought to the court for trial.
The bench of Justice Vinod Bhardwaj had allowed the petition filed by Savita (wife of deceased) and others against the State of Haryana seeking compensation for the death of her husband, Vikas alias Dodhiya.
Vikas had been facing charges of attempt to murder and assaulting public servant in a FIR registered against him in 2015.
Savita – through her counsel Rajesh Goyal – had contended before the high court that her husband (Vikas) was killed while in police custody. Vikas had expressed apprehension about it, she contended.
Savita claimed compensation for the death of her husband while in police custody saying that it was the responsibility of the state to take appropriate steps to protect the life of her husband. The incident clearly shows that steps taken by the respondent authorities were inadequate, she contended.
The State of Haryana filed an affidavit through Sandeep Kumar, DSP, Ganaur, Sonipat. The state denied involvement of police officials in the said incident. It said that armed police personnel were deputed for protecting the life of Vikas. But, on the date of the incident, when they reached near the veranda of the courtroom, some 5-6 assailants fired gunshots at Vikas. Constable Bhoop Singh had sustained pellet injuries in the incident.
Among the assailants, Gaurav @ Mitra and Rupender @ Nanha were apprehended by ASI Ajmer. An FIR was registered against them. They were booked for murder and under Arms Act.
On behalf of the state, another affidavit was filed through Sandeep Singh, DSP, Ganaur, wherein it was pointed out that Vikas had criminal antecedents and was involved in 12 different criminal incidents.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that it was the responsibility of the state to ensure that adequate safety measures were put in place to protect the life of Vikas. The state cannot be allowed to disown its liability for loss of life of the petitioner’s husband at the time when he was in the custody of the state, the counsel argued.
The bench of Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj, after hearing the matter, said, “It must be kept in mind that a person who is confined to judicial custody is lodged under orders of the court and it is the obligation of the state to prevent any untoward incident leading to premature termination of life of said person while in the protective custody of the police under the orders of the court.”
Justice Bhardwaj added, “The agencies and instrumentalities of the state cannot be obviated of their obligation to ensure protection of a life and the liberty of an individual when he is confined to prison/jail under the orders of a court. It cannot be left open to the state agencies to wash of their responsibility by holding it as an event of private dispute amongst two private individuals and seek exoneration from all obligations to ensure safety and security of inmates while in prison. The assessment of danger, the possibility of a fight and the maintenance of law and order within the jail premises is the responsibility of the state.”
Adding further that state would be obligated to compensate the petitioners who are next of kin of Vikas, Justice Bhardwaj said, “The mere absence of active participation of jail/police authorities does not absolve the sovereign of its obligation to ensure protection of life of inmates. Absence of participation shields the officials against criminal prosecution and cannot be cited as the basis to wriggle out of the civil and tortuous liabilities.”
The high court thus awarding a compensation of Rs 6.14 lakh to the petitioners directed that the proportionate share of the minors shall be deposited in a nationalised bank (in an FDR) under a scheme that would earn maximum rate of interest to be released in the favour of minors upon attaining majority.