- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sabitri Kanhar Others v. State Of Orissa
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners are two widows (petitioners no.1 and no.2). Petitioner no.1's husband Sudarsan Kanhar and petitioner no.2's husband Duryodhan Kanhar (who was petitioner no.1's elder son) were convicted under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Boudh (judgment dated 15.02.2001) in connection with a murder on 05.09.1999 arising out of a land dispute.
While serving their sentences in Special Sub-Jail, Boudh, both Sudarsan Kanhar (Convict No.3734/A) and Duryodhan Kanhar (Convict No.3333/A) were attacked and fatally injured on the night of 21/22.09.2010 by another convict, Antaryami (Convict No.3513/A). They were taken to the District Head Quarter Hospital, Boudh; Duryodhan Kanhar was declared dead at the hospital and Sudarsan Kanhar died at 3.00 A.M. during treatment. A co-convict, Kamapla Khamari, was also grievously injured and referred to another medical facility.
On 22.09.2010 the Superintendent of Special Sub-Jail, Boudh lodged an F.I.R., and Boudh P.S. Case No.109 of 2010 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.259 of 2010) was registered for offences punishable under Sections 303/307/325, I.P.C. A departmental inquiry by the Deputy Inspector General (D.I.G.) of Prisons, Berhampur range (report dated 24.09.2010) found security lapses and attributed responsibility to the Jailor-cum-Superintendent. The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking compensation from the State for the deaths of their husbands in jail custody.
Legal Issues Presented
- What compensation are the petitioners entitled to for the death of their husbands while in jail custody?
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The petitioners contended that their husbands (both life-convicts) were brutally murdered while under jail custody, causing severe trauma and irreparable loss to the family and jeopardizing their livelihood and future.
- They asserted that the deaths arose from negligence and lapses of the jail authorities/staff, leading to violation of the deceased prisoners' right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Relying on the State's vicarious liability for custodial failures (as indicated by previous Supreme Court decisions referenced generally), the petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing payment of compensation by the State; they asked for Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs.25 lakh) as compensation.
Opposite Parties' (State) Responses
- The opposite parties filed a counter denying some averments but did not dispute that the incident occurred inside jail custody or that a criminal case had been registered against the attacker (Antaryami) under Sections 303/307/325, I.P.C.
- They relied on the D.I.G. of Prisons' inquiry report (dated 24.09.2010) and stated that the Jailor-cum-Superintendent, two Head Warders and one Warder had been placed under suspension and departmental proceedings initiated to determine culpable negligence.
- The State also noted that the Orissa Human Rights Commission had registered a related case (OHRC Case No.1749/2010).
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded from established and undisputed facts: (a) two convicts (the petitioners' husbands) were attacked and died while in jail custody; (b) a criminal case was registered against the attacker; and (c) the D.I.G.'s inquiry reported security lapses and attributed responsibility to the Jailor-cum-Superintendent, prompting suspensions and departmental action.
On these facts the court concluded that the deaths resulted from negligence on the part of the jail authorities and staff, thereby entitling the petitioners to compensation. The court noted that the deaths amounted to a violation of the right to life under Article 21 and treated the State as vicariously liable (referring generally to a "catena of decisions" of the Supreme Court without naming specific cases).
For quantification the court applied the methodology of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V. Act) and the Schedule thereto as a guideline for minimum income where no income is proved by claimants. The court explicitly adopted the following approach (as stated in the opinion):
- In the absence of evidence of income, the minimum monthly income of each deceased was taken as Rs.3,000/- per month (following Section 163-A and the Schedule).
- A deduction of one-third of the monthly income was made for personal expenses, leaving a monthly family contribution of Rs.2,000/-.
- A multiplier corresponding to the deceased's age was applied to compute total dependency.
- Conventional heads (funeral expenses, loss of consortium/love and affection, loss of estate etc.) were added as fixed sums the court considered appropriate in each case.
- The awarded amounts were directed to carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition until payment, and payment was ordered within four weeks from the date of the judgment.
The court's specific calculations, as set out in the opinion, were:
Monthly presumed income = Rs.3,000/-
After deduction of 1/3 for personal expenses: contribution = Rs.2,000/- per month = Rs.24,000/- per year
Multiplier applied = 5
Dependency = Rs.24,000 x 5 = Rs.1,20,000/-
Funeral/obsequies added = Rs.5,000/-
Total awarded = Rs.1,25,000/-
Monthly presumed income = Rs.3,000/-
After deduction of 1/3 for personal expenses: contribution = Rs.2,000/- per month = Rs.24,000/- per year
Multiplier applied = 13
Dependency = Rs.24,000 x 13 = Rs.3,12,000/-
Conventional heads (funeral, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate) added = Rs.58,000/-
Total awarded = Rs.3,70,000/-
The court thus determined the compensation amounts by applying the M.V. Act guideline figures where no income proof existed and by adding conventional heads; it did not elaborate further doctrinally beyond holding the State vicariously liable for the custodial lapse and referring to the D.I.G.'s inquiry and departmental action as corroborative of negligence.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The writ petition was allowed and the court awarded compensation to the petitioners in the following amounts:
- Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty-five thousand) in respect of the death of Sudarsan Kanhar in favour of his wife (petitioner no.1) and minor son.
- Rs.3,70,000/- (Rupees three lakh seventy thousand) in respect of the death of Duryodhan Kanhar in favour of his wife (petitioner no.2) and two minor sons.
- Both amounts to carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition until payment.
- The opposite parties (State) were directed to pay the awarded amounts within four weeks from the date of the judgment.
Implications: The direct effect is a monetary award to the petitioners for deaths that occurred in jail custody due to negligence by jail authorities/staff. The opinion applies the M.V. Act (Section 163-A and the Schedule) as a pragmatic guideline for computing compensation where income is not proved. The court did not, in the text provided, state or discuss any new legal precedent beyond applying established principles of State vicarious liability for custodial failures and using the M.V. Act methodology for quantification. No specific Supreme Court or other case law authorities were cited by name in the provided opinion.
V. Gopala Gowda, C.J.
1. The petitioner nos.1 and 2, the widows of late Sudarshan Kanhar and Late Duryodhan Kanhar respectively, are before this Court claiming compensation from the opp. parties by urging following facts and legal contentions.
2. The husband of petitioner no.1 Sudarsan Kanhar, her elder son (the husband of petitioner-2) Duryodhan Kanhar, her younger son Bhimasen Kanhar and a relative, Bhagaban Pradhan were convicted under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Boudh in S.T. No.25 of 2000 vide the judgment and order dated 15.02.2001 in connection with murder of one Kishore Chandra Behera on 05.09.1999 arising out of a land dispute.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that while undergoing the aforesaid sentence in Special Sub-Jail, Boudh Sudarsan Kanhar (Convict No.3734/A) and Duryodhan Kanhar (Convict No.3333/A) were stoned to death on the night of 21/22.09.2010 by another convict namely Antaryami Rana (Convict No.3513/A). It is alleged that on the said night at about 1.00 A.M. Antaryami Rana attacked Sudarsan Kanhar, Duryodhan Kanhar and Kamapala Khamari with a stone inside Ward No.4 who were severely and grievously injured. All the three critically injured convicts were immediately shifted to District Head Quarter Hospital, Boudh by the jail staff. Convict Duryodhan Kanhar was declared dead at District Head Quarter Hospital and convict Sudarsan Kanhar was also declared dead at 3.00 A.M. while he was undergoing treatment and the other convict Kamapla Khamari was referred to VSS Medical College, Hospital, Burla on 22.09.2010.
4. On 22.09.2010, the Superintendent of Special Sub-Jail, Boudh lodged an F.I.R. with Boudh Police Station and a case was registered u/s 303/307/325, I.P.C. vide Boudh P.S. Case No.109 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No.259 of 2010.
5. It is stated that the deceased Sudarsan Kanhar is survived by his wife (petitioner no.1) and his younger son Bhimasen Kanhar who is suffering sentence at Biju Patnaik Open Air Ashram, Jamujhari. The deceased Duryodhan Kanhar is survived by his wife (petitioner no.2) and his two minor sons, namely, Trilochaan and Chandan Kanhar.
6. It is the further case of the petitioners that in view of the brutal murder of Sudarsan Kanhar and Duryodhan Kanhar in the jail custody, the family of the petitioners suffered from severe trauma and intense mental agony. In the death of the two adult senior members, the family of the petitioners obviously suffered an irreparable loss. The safety, survival and future of the petitioners' family have been jeopardized on account of murder of two adult senior members of the family who were expected to be released in the near future which would have enabled them to take care of the family. It is stated that when they were alive and suffering sentence inside the jail, they had been supporting the family by sending the wages earned therein by them. In view of the brutal death in the jail custody, the payment of suitable compensation by the State has become an imperative need for ensuring the livelihood/maintenance of the family and for securing the upbringing/education of the minor children.
7. It is very relevant to be stated that on 22.09.2010 the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Berhampur range conducted an enquiry and submitted his report vide letter No.62 dated 24.09.2010. The relevant portion of the said report reads as under:
During my course of enquiry, I gathered information that the officers are not attending luck-up and un-lock-up of the wards for which the Guarding Staff are getting scope to neglect in their duty, not searching the wards before lock-up as a result this unfortunate incident took place inside the Special Sub-Jail, Boudh on 21.09.2010 night. The Jailor-cum-Superintendent Sri Arun Ku. Rath is squarely responsible for such security mismanagement of the jail.
8. It is further stated that the persons were brutally murdered while suffering sentence due to the utter failure on the part of the State and its employees in ensuring the safety and security of the deceased prisoners inside the jail. The aforesaid failure arising out of the negligence and latches of the jail authorities and staff in this regard resulted in violation of the right to life of the deceased convicts under Article 21 of the Constitution, therefore, the State is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the next of kin of the deceased person as the same is mandated by the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. Therefore, the petitioners having found no other alternative remedy they have filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the opp. party no.1 to pay a compensation of Rs.25.00 lakh to the petitioners for the murder of their husbands by another inmate in the Special Sub-Jail, Boudh, Ward No.4 while they were undergoing sentence.
9. Statement of counter has been filed on behalf of opp. parties 1 and 2 traversing the petitioners' averments, but the facts that the incident took place inside the jail custody and a criminal case has been registered against another convict who committed offence under Sections 303/307/325, I.P.C. on the complaint of Sri Arun Kumar Rath, Superintendent, Special Sub-Jail, Boudh are not in dispute. It is stated that a spot inquiry was conducted by the D.I.G. of Prisons, Berhampur Range, Berhampur on 22.09.2010. Basing upon the inquiry report dated 24.09.2010 of the D.I.G., Prisons, Berhampur the Jailor-cum-Superintendent, two Head Warders and one Warder have been placed under suspension and departmental action has already been initiated against them. It is also stated therein that after finalization of the Departmental Proceedings, the culpable negligence on the part of the Jail Officers/Staff will be determined.
10. It is further stated that the Orissa Human Rights Commission is also aware of the alleged ghastly incident and has registered OHRC Case No. 1749/2010.
11. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the opp. parties, the facts that the alleged ghastly incident which had taken place inside the jail custody and two convicts who are the husbands of the petitioners died on account of the assault by another convict who was undergoing sentence along with the deceased for life are not in dispute. Therefore, the only question that falls for our consideration is as to what compensation the petitioners are entitled to in this petition.
12. The death of the two prisoners occurred on account of the attack by the co-convict No.3513/A Antaryani Rana is not in dispute. Further, it is not in dispute that against the said co-convict vide Boudh P.S. Case No. 109 of 2010 has been registered for the offences punishable u/s 303/307/325, I.P.C. corresponding to G.R. Case No.259 of 2010. Further, the report of inquiry dated 24.09.2010 submitted by the D.I.G. of Prisons, Berhanpur Range, Berhanpur, states as follows:
I am to state that on receipt of the information from the Jailor-cum-Superintendent of Special Sub-Jail, Boudh on 21.09.2010 night at about 2.00 A.M. regarding death of two Life Convicts and one serious injury of another convict due to causing grievous hurt by a life convict inside the ward No.4, I proceeded to Boudh on 22.09.2010 morning to enquire into the matter. There, I came to know that life convict No.3513/A, Antaryami Rana, S/o. Ratha Rana of Village - Kirasira, P.S. Manmunda of District - Boudh attacked with a stone of size 1' length and 6 to 8" width weighing about two K.G. to 2.1/2 K.G. having sharpness around the surface to the life convict No.3333/A, Duryodhan Kanhar ' Milu aged about 40 years, S/o. Sudarsan Kanhar, Convict No.3734/A, Sudarsan Kanhar aged about 80 years S/o. Surya Kanhar of Village-Goradamunda, P.S. Harvangha of District-Boudh, and to life convict 3743/A, Kamapla Khamari aged about 60 years S/o. Iswar Khamari of Village -Godhaeswar, P.S. Birmaharajpur of District - Sonpur on 21.09.2010 night at about 1.00 A.M.
13. Further, as could be seen from the statement of counter filed on behalf of opp. parties 1 and 2, basing upon the inquiry report the Jailor-cum-Superintendent, two Head Warders and one Warder have already been placed under suspension and departmental action has already been initiated against them and after finalization of the Departmental Proceedings, the culpable negligence on the part of the Jail Officers/Staff will be determined.
14. Keeping the aforesaid facts in view, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled to compensation for the negligence on the part of the Jail Superintendent and the Staff referred to supra for having killed the husband of the petitioners by co-convicts. Therefore, the compensation is required to be awarded in favour of the petitioners. Then what is the quantum of compensation to be awarded is the question required to be considered. For the above purpose, the guidelines of the M.V. Act are required to be applied to the case on hand. Under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act and the Schedule therein the minimum monthly income of the deceased Sudarshan Kanhar in the absence of the income proved by the claimants the petitioners herein shall be taken at Rs.3,000/-. Apart from the above, guidelines, the life convicts will be continuing during the period of imprisonment, as the jail authorities are required to get the work done by the convicts depends their skill. The age of the deceased husband of petitioner no.1 is about 70 years. In such case, the multiplier of 5 is applicable. If out of the monthly income of Rs.3000/-, 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses, the monthly contribution towards family would come to Rs.2000/-. Calculated on the aforesaid basis the total dependency would come to Rs. 1,20,000/-. If to the above sum an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and obsequies ceremony is added the total amount of compensation would come to Rs.1,25,000/- (rupees one lakh twenty five thousand). In so far as the husband of the petitioner no.2 Duryodhan Kanhar is concerned, he was aged about 45 years at the time of death. His monthly income has also not been proved. Therefore, in the absence of any proof of his income, his monthly income is taken as Rs.3000/-. Having regard to his age, multiplier of 13 is applicable. On the aforesaid basis if 1/3rd out of the aforesaid amount is taken as personal expenses, then the dependency of the second petitioner would come to Rs.2000/- per month, i.e. Rs.24,000/-per year and applying the multiplier of 13, it would come to Rs.3,12,000/-. If to the above sum an amount of Rs.58.000/ towards funeral expenses and obsequies ceremony, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and loss of estate is added, which are considered as conventional heads, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs.3,70,000/- (rupees three lakh seventy thousand). Hence, we award a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- (rupees one lakh twenty-five thousand) towards the death of the deceased Sudarsan Kanhar in favour of his wife (petitioner no.1) and minor son and Rs.3,70,000/- (rupees three lakh seventy thousand) towards the death of Duryodhan Kanhar in favour of his wife (petitioner no.2) and two minor sons. The aforesaid amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition till the amounts are paid. Accordingly, the opp. parties are directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the claimant-petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of date of this judgment.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
Alert