Unnatural Death At Police Station Not Enough To Fix Police Negligence Without Evidence: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a death occurring within police station premises does not, by itself, establish negligence on the part of police officials, observing that liability must be based on demonstrable negligence and not merely on hindsight or presumption.

“A tragic consequence, however grave, does not by itself establish culpable inaction,” Justice Amit Mahajan observed.

The bench added, "This Court does not intend to and is not stating that police officials ought not to be vigilant or that unnatural death when in custody of police may not attract consequence. Having noted so, liability must rest upon demonstrable negligence and not merely hindsight or presumption."

The Court made the observations while setting aside an order passed by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which had recommended the Delhi Police to pay Rs. 5 lakh as monetary compensation to the next of kin of a man who died by suicide inside a police station in December 2019.

The Court held that in the absence of material establishing a specific omission, prior knowledge of imminent danger, or a reasonable opportunity to prevent the incident, negligence could not be attributed to the police merely because the deceased was present at the police station.

The case arose after deceased Rashid Raza's wife died under unnatural circumstances on December 7, 2019. According to the Delhi Police, Raza visited the Narela Industrial Area Police Station the following day on his own to enquire about his wife's death.

The police stated that while the staff had gone for an evening briefing by the Station House Officer, Raza discreetly locked himself inside a room and died by suicide by hanging. He was subsequently found by a member of the public and rushed to a hospital, where he was declared brought dead.

An inquest was conducted, and a medical board determined the cause of death to be asphyxia due to hanging. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in the inquest report dated August 29, 2020, found no evidence of scuffle or torture by the police and noted that the death of Raza's wife could have been a possible reason for his suicide.

The NHRC subsequently initiated proceedings and issued a show-cause notice to the Delhi Police in October 2023, asking why compensation of Rs. 5 lakh should not be recommended to Raza's next of kin. It also directed the police to initiate departmental action against the officials concerned.

The Delhi Police opposed the recommendation, contending that Raza had visited the police station voluntarily, was neither summoned nor arrested, and was free to move around the premises. It argued that there was no material establishing a human rights violation or negligence on the part of its officials.

The NHRC, however, recommended compensation on the ground that Raza was in police custody and that the officials had a duty to prevent him from harming himself.

Setting aside the recommendation, the Court noted that there was no material to suggest that Raza was brought to the police station by the police, summoned, detained, or otherwise deprived of his liberty.

The Court also examined the CCTV footage from the police station and noted that Raza was seen walking freely in the corridor at 3:48 pm before entering a room at 3:52 pm.

It also noted that at 5:28 pm, Raza was seen peeking outside the room, after which the door was closed and that the police officials were subsequently seen breaking open the door after receiving information about the incident.

The Court observed that the footage and other material indicated that Raza's movement within the premises was not restricted and that the incident might have occurred without the police having a reasonable opportunity to intervene.

Justice Mahajan clarified that negligence in preventing a human rights violation by a public servant can be examined under Section 12(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. However, the Court found no independent basis in the case to infer negligence.

“The death, though extremely unfortunate, does not ipso facto raise a presumption of negligence. The location of the death though a relevant factor ought not to be the only factor to fasten liability,” the Court said.

It added that the ruling should not be understood to mean that police officials need not remain vigilant or that an unnatural death occurring in police custody cannot attract consequences.

It observed that the NHRC had effectively sought to penalise the police for failing to anticipate and prevent the death of a person who had voluntarily visited the police station and whose movement had not been restricted.

“The proceedings before Respondent No. 1 are summary in nature, and in view of the contentions as noted above, the recommendation made by Respondent No. 1 for payment of 5,00,000/- as monetary compensation on the ground that there was negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights on the part of the police officials, cannot be sustained,” the Court said.