1. Writ petition admitted. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal Add. A.G., Punjab, waives service for the respondents By consent, petition is placed on board and called out for hearing.
2. In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, the petitioner-Joginder Kaur, widow of Santokh Singh, has prayed for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the family of the deceased Santokh Singh. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was aged about 40 years and he was gainfully employed as agricultural labourer. He was also doing the business of milk vendor. He had kept two she-buffaloes. The family of Santokh Singh consisted of his wife, Joginder Kaur, the petitioner and three minor children aged about 13, 10 and 8 years. It is alleged by the petitioner that on August 16, 1991, at about 2 P.M. Head Constable Lakhwinder Singh alias Lakha, Head Constable Nazar Singh Manshi; Harbans Singh Constable; Makhan Singh Punjab Home Guard; Mohan Lal Head Constable and Jeet Singh, Constable all from Police Choki Ladowal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, picked up Santokh Singh. Translations of D.D.R. No. 15 and 19 are annexed to this petition as Annexures P.I and P.2. According to the petitioner, after taking Santokh Singh to the Police Chowki, he was beaten mercilessly. He was hanged up side down to a tree within the premises of Police Chowki. Due to merciless beating, Santokh Singh died. It is alleged by the petitioner that her husband died in the custody of police and the explanation sought to be given by the police machinery that Santokh Singh died by snake bite is totally malicious and false. In view of the custodial death, she has prayed that she be awarded damages/compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 does not dispute the fact that Santokh Singh died at the Police Post Ladowal during the night of 16th and the 17th August, 1991. Respondents, however, denied that there was any beating given to Santokh Singh. According to the respondents, Santokh Singh died of shock possible due to vasovagal attack. It is also further alleged in the written statement that on enquiry made in the locality, it was revealed that Santokh Singh was a chronic and acute asthmatic patient for the last 15 to 16 years and he had been taking desi treatment. Due to acute asthma and intake of drugs, he suffered from respiratory deficiency and as a result thereof, he died in the police custody. It is in these circumstances not with standing the fact that Santokh Singh died in the police custody, the respondents cannot be held liable and responsible for the death of Santokh Singh. Along with the written statement, the respondents have also filed an affidavit of the petitioner dated September 25,1991 and paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof read as under:-
"2. That due to acute asthematic and intake of drugs, he suffered from Respiratory deficiency also."
"3. That my husband Santokh Singh had died because of these ailments while during his custody with the police and previous doubt or misinformation was wrong and I do not want any action against any police officer."
Mr. Aggarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents drawing support from this affidavit, urged that in view of the solemn statement of the petitioner in her affidavit dated September 25, 1991, there can be no doubt that Santokh Singh died because of asthama and intake of drugs and, therefore, it could not be a custodial death on account of beating or otherwise to Santokh Singh. This affidavit, if read in the context of the information submitted by Jugraj Singh, Sub-Inspector, Annexure P.4, wherein it is stated that Santokh Singh died due to snake bite, indicates an attempt on the part of the respondents to obtain an affidavit from Shrimati Joginder Kaur to hush up the case of custodial death. We strongly feel agitated about the attitude adopted by the respondents in this case. The post-mortem report indicates that Santokh Singh had suffered some minor injuries on his person. Mr. Aggarwal also made a point that if Santokh Singh was given merciless beating, there ought to have been many more injuries on his person. Relying upon this circumstance, he urged that the story put forth by the petitioner is a cooked up one and no reliance whatsoever can be placed upon the averments contained in the petition. We are unmoved by this submission because we see no hesitation in accepting the fact that Santokh Singh was picked up by the police during the night intervening between the 16th and the 17th August, 1991, in a hale and hearty condition and he was found dead in the morning of August 17, 1991. His death in the police custody is admitted and it is for the custodian to offer explanation for the same and if the explanation is found unacceptable, the inference must follow that it is a custodial death and not a natural death. Injuries or no injuries on the person of Santokh Singh would not absolve the respondents from their liability to account for the death of Santokh Singh. We accordingly conclude that the death of Santokh Singh is a custodial death of which the respondents could not give satisfactory explanation. Our finding, however, in this writ petition would not prejudice the criminal proceedings, if there are any.
3. Coming to the part of compensation, the petitioner has given a little exorbitant figures as regards the income of Santokh Singh. We discount the statement as regards the income of Santokh Singh averred in the petition. In our safely taken to Rs. 2,000/- per month from all sources. We deduct one-third from the total income towards the personal maintenance of Santokh Singh, leaving the balance of two-thirds for the maintenance of the family. On this rough working, we find that Santokh Singh contributed Rs. 16,000/- per year towards the maintenance of his family. Santokh Singh, even as per the post-mortem report, was aged about 42 years at the time of death. Applying the multiplier of sixteen, the petitioner is held entitled to receive Rs. 2,56,000/- towards compensation/damages. Since the petitioner is to be paid in lumpsum, we reduce this figure of Rs. 2,56,000/- to Rs. l,50,000/-. This amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- be deposited in District Court Ludhiana on or before June 6, 1994. Out of this deposited amount, the petitioner is allowed to withdraw Rs. 50,000/-. The District Judge, Ludhiana, is directed to invest the balance amount in the names of the three minor children in equal proportion in the fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) in a nationalised bank. The investment be renewed from time to time until minor attains age of majority. Each of the minor child upon attaining majority apply to the District Judge to encash the FDR and pay the entire amount with interest if any accrued thereon. The interest accruing on the FDRs be paid to the petitioner for the maintenance and welfare of these minor children. It is also made clear that the payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- is by way of full and final satisfaction towards the claim of the petitioner and her minor children.
4. In the result, the writ petition is accepted in terms of the above directions. No order as to costs.