The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.:— This application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the sole petitioner, who is widow of late Sudhir Singh alias Bhoma for an appropriate writ/order/direction upon the respondents for compensation as the husband of the petitioner was murdered while he was in jail custody.

2. The short facts giving rise to this application are that the petitioner's husband Sudhir Singh was arrested in connection with some criminal case by the police and remanded to jail custody. On 22-1-1999 while her husband was in jail custody and undergoing treatment in the jail Hospital at about 7.30 in the evening, other prisoners, led by one Anil Sharma with more than dozen of his associates attacked the petitioner's husband with Chhura, Iron rods, belts, etc. resulting in his death. Accordingly, the First Information Report was also lodged by one Hare Ram Singh alias Manoj Singh being Sadar (Lower Bazar) P.S Case No. 53 of 1999 for the offences under Sections 147,148, 149, 323, 324,307 and 302 of IPC. The Fardbeyan of the Informant reads as follows:

3. The petitioner being the widow is left with two minor children born to her on 4-8-1994 and 22-9-1997. Thus, it is more necessary that she may be given some cash compensation so that she can lead to a respectable life and she may also give •respectable lift to her minor children.

4. One supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating therein that a proceeding before Human Rights Commission was also initiated and the copy of the order passed in the said proceeding has been filed, from which it appears that the Government of Bihar was directed to pay compensation to the peti-tioner in the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs.

5. Another supplementary affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner claiming therein that the husband of the petitioner was running a shop, though licence was obtained in the name of deponent, Jogender Singh, who is elder brother of the petitioner and the entire family is a joint family and it is also claimed that father-in-law of the petitioner is a retired person and after the death of her husband whole family is on the verge of starvation. The education of two minor daughters of the petitioner is also being affected due to lack of money.

6. The respondent No. 2 (the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi) filed counter-affida-vit stating therein that Ranchi Central Jail has around 2,400 prisoners against its sanctioned capacity of around 400 prisoners only and this is naturally creating some problem for the Jail administration. The cases under Sections 307, 120-Band34, IPC read with Sections 25-A(1-B), 26 and 27 of the Arms Act were pending against the deceased, likewise, cases under Section 302 and other offences of Indian Penal Code and under. Section 27 of the Arms Act are also pending against accused Anil Sharma in different police stations. Both the accused and victim were dead against each other and belonged to rival criminal group. In the morning of 22-1-1999 the accused-persons taking advantage of the overcrowding in the jail attacked and killed the deceased. This is a case of gang rivalry which does not justify the case for consideration for compensation.

7. Another counter has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi narrating the same facts, as stated by the respon-dent No. 2. However, it is further stated that the entire case was investigated by Abhay Kumar Jha, Officer-in-charge. Lower Bazar Police Station and charges were found true against the accused-persons.

8. The respondent No. 4, the Superintendent of Central Jail, Ranchi also filed counter-affidavit claiming therein that two jail wardens, who were on duty at the time of occurrence have been placed under suspension preparatory to departmental pro-ceeding for their failure to perform their duties. The Jail administration has made an administrative arrangement but the person on, duty did not show expected level of alertness to prevent this sudden incident. However, this incident is not on the failure of administrative arrangement but due to gang rivalry. According to him, the capacity of male prisoner in the jail is 355 and the female prisoners is of 9, but at present there are 2,400 prisoners in the Central Jail and it is being more difficult to jail administra-tion to manage such a group. The victim was undergoing the treatment in the jail hospital and after the inciden the was immediately taken to R.M.C.H In such situation, the monetary compensation cannot be paid to the family of such person who were themselves criminals and the application filed by the petitioner is fit to be dismissed.

9. Mr. A.K Pandey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the husband of the petitioner was murdered due to negligence on the part of the jail authority, when the husband of the petitioner was in the jail custody and the life of the husband of the petitioner could not be saved. It is further submitted that the Human Rights Commission also held responsible to the jail authority as the responsibility for the safety and security of the persons while in judicial custody squarely vests with the jail authority and the jail authority failed to give safety and security to the husband of the petitioner resulting his death in jail campus and the petitioner was also awarded a com-pensation of Rs. 2 lakh.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Vinod Poddar, the learned Additional Advocate-General contended before me that the petitioner has already been awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs by Human Rights Commission and as such, she is not entitled for further compensation for the same negligence as well as she cannot get the relief from two forums.

11. From the perusal of FIR, being Sadar (Lower Bazar) P.S Case No. 53/99, it is clear that the deceased died in the Jail custody. It is further evident that a proceeding was also initiated before the National Human Rights Commission, who took cognizance of the complaint. The Commission also finds it grossly negligent on the part of the Jail authorities that they permit inmates of the prison to be in possession of sharp-edged weapon. It was further observed that the responsibility for the safety and security of the prisoners was not exercised with any care. Accordingly, the Commission awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lakh as compensation to the petitioner.

12. It has been observed in the case of O.K Basuv. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416:—

“Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in civilised society gov-erned by the rules of law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Consti-tution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibitiorn of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation interrogation or otherwise.”

13. It has further been held that the award of compensation in the public law jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other action like civil suit for damages which is lawfully available to the victim or the heirs of the deceased victim with respect to the same matter for the tortious act committed by the functionaries of the State. The quantum of compen-sation will, of course, depend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be evolved in that behalf. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Court and paid by the State to redress the wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted against any amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of damage in a civil suit.

14. In the case of Smt. Kewalpati v. State of U.P, (1995) 3 SCC 600, it was held by the apex Court:—

“Ramjit Upadhyaya was a convict and was working as a Nambardar in the jail. He was strict in maintaining discipline amongst the co-accused. It was due to this strictness in his behavior as Nambardar that he was attacked and killed by Happu, a co-accused. Even though Ramjit Upadhyaya was a convict and was serving his sentence yet the authorities were not absolved of their responsibility to ensure his life and safety in the jail. A prisoner does not cease to have his fundamental right except to the extent he has been deprived of it in accordance with law. (See: Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and A.K Roy v. Union of India), Therefore, he was entitled to protection. Since the killing took place when he was in jail, it resulted in deprivation of his life contrary to law. He is survived by his wife and three children. His untimely death has deprived the peti- tioner and her children of his company and affection. Since it has taken place while he was serving his sentence due to failure of the authorities to protect him, we are of the opinion that they are entitled to be compensated.”

15. In the case of Ajab Singh v. State of U.P, (2000) 3 SCC 521, it has been observed that there can be no doubt that the respondents have not investigated the cause of death of Rishipal as they ought to have done or that, at any rate, they have not placed all the relevant material before this Court. They have at-tempted to pull the wool over the eyes of this Court. We do not appreciate the death of persons in judicial custody. When such deaths occur, it is not only to the public at large that those holding custody are responsible; they are responsible also to the Courts under whose orders they hold such custody.

16. It was further held that State of UP. is responsible in public law for the death of Rishipal and must pay compensation to the petitioners for the same. Though, in that case, the Central Bureau of Investigation was directed to investigate about the cause of Rishlpal's death after registering a case.

17. As noticed above, the deceased Sudhir Singh.died in the jail custody, when the jail authority was fully responsible for his safety and security and apparently this respon-sibility could not be exercised with any care. Moreover, National Human Rights Commis-sion, by taking cognizance of the case, also held Jail authority responsible for such laches and negligence resulting death of the undertrial prisoner and awarded a compen-sation of Rs. 2 lakh.

18. It is the prime duty of the jail authority being custodian to provide security and safety to the life of prisoners while in jail custody, even though he is criminal or accused in criminal case. It was the responsibility of the jail authority to save the life of the deceased after he was taken into custody, but unequivocally serious injuries caused to the deceased Sudhir Singh while in the jail premises as a result of which he died. It is, prima facie, evident that due to negligence on the part of the jail authority, such violence took place which resulted in the death of undertrial prisoner within the jail premises. It is, therefore, a fit case where the petitioner, who is widow, having two minor daughters, need to be compensated. It is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner shall be paid compensa-tion of Rs. 3 lakh of which Rs. 2 lakh already awarded by the National Human Rights Commission shail be adjusted: Therefore, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be paid compensation at Rs. 1 lakh only In this case.

19. The State Government is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the petitioner of which Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner immediately and the balance of Rs. 50,000/- be deposited in a nationalised Bank in the name of the petitioner under Fixed Deposit for a period of five years. The said compensation must be paid within the period of five months from today.

20. With the above observation this application is disposed of.

21. Ordered accordingly.