Madhuben v. State Of Gujarat

K.S Jhaveri, J.:— Both these petitions relate to one and the same incident and therefore, they are decided by this common judgment.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner herein is the mother of one Ashok Hakabhai, who was taken into custody by the Police Officers of Morbi City Police Station for allegedly committing offence under the Prohibition Act. Ashok was allegedly tortured while in police custody and ultimately, succumbed to the injuries during the course of treatment.

3. It is the case of petitioner that deceased Ashok was taken into custody on the night of 18.02.2006 and was kept in illegal detention until 19.02.2006 The deceased was produced before the concerned Court only on 20.02.2006 On the next day, i.e on 21.02.2006, the petitioner herein came to know about the entire incident while he was shifted to Civil Hospital for treatment. On 22.02.2006 the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The post-mortem report of the deceased revealed that he had sustained multiple injuries, all over his body, which were ante-mortem. Therefore, the petitioner approached the concerned Police Station by way of necessary complaint. However, no action was taken by the police authority. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Magistrate, Morbi by filing a private complaint against the accused police officials. A criminal complaint was registered and thereafter, the learned Magistrate passed an order on 20.11.2006 directing investigation u/s.156 of Cr.P.C and the matter was registered as Criminal Inquiry No. 106/2006, which was later converted to C.C No. 04/2008. Thereafter, ‘B’ Summary report was filed, which was rejected. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused persons approached the Sessions Court by way of Criminal Revision Application No. 06/2008, which was allowed, vide order dated 15.05.2008

4. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred writ petition being Special Criminal Application No. 1140/2008, which is also decided along with this petition. Special Criminal Application No. 536/2010 has been preferred for the grant of just and fair compensation to the petitioner for the custodial death of her son and for holding the State vicariously liable for the illegal actions and conduct of its police officers.

5. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the documents on record. When the matters were earlier listed before this Court, a suggestion was put by the Court to learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin that the dispute may be settled by awarding a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1.50 Lacs as compensation to the mother of deceased, the petitioner herein.

6. Today, Mr. Mitesh Amin, learned Public Prosecution, drew my attention to the decision of Apex Court in the cases of Nilabati Behera (Smt.) @ Lalita Behera (Through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 and Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, through the Home Secretary, Government of Haryana, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, (2013) 14 SCC 290 and submitted that in facts and circumstances of the case, the Court may award some suitable amount as compensation to the petitioner.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the principle rendered by the Apex Court in the above decisions, I am of the opinion that if an amount of Rs. 1.50 Lacs is awarded as compensation to the petitioner, the same would meet the ends of justice. Consequently, the respondent-State is directed to make payment of Rs. 1.50 Lacs (Rupees One lac fifty thousand only) to the petitioner herein as lumpsum compensation, within a period of six months from today. The said amount is paid towards amicable settlement of all the grievances raised by the petitioner in connection with the death of his son while in police custody. It is clarified that this order is issued not as a concession by the respondent but, by the direction of the Court and therefore, this shall not be treated as precedent in other cases. With the above observations, both the petitions stand disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.