Custodial Death | Gauhati HC Awards ₹25 Lakh Compensation To Businessman's Widow, Says Pending Trial Against Cops No Bar

While awarding compensation under the public law remedy, a bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Shamima Jahan took strong exception to the barbaric instances of custodial violence.

In its 41-page judgment, the Bench categorically rejected the State's stance that payment of compensation should be postponed until the pending criminal trial against the accused police officials concludes.

"According to this Court, it is not necessary to wait till the conclusion of the criminal trial, to reach to the conclusion that the Police officers were in fact responsible for the custodial death of the deceased and then pay compensation, as is contended by the respondent State", the bench remarked, relying upon Bombay HC's 2005 judgment in Sheela S. Yerpude Vs. Home Department and Ors.

Briefly put, it was the case of the petitioner, Joyanta Maibangsa, that her husband, a businessman, was forcefully picked up from his residence on April 24, 2020, by some men, later found out to be police personnel.

The Court noted from the case records that this abduction was allegedly done based on a piece of information that the petitioner's husband was going to sell arms and ammunition to an extremist. The cops purportedly intended to extract more information from him.

The petitioner, on seeing her husband being forcefully taken away, lodged an FIR alleging that her husband was kidnapped. However, despite invoking Section 365 IPC, the police did not take any action.

Therefore, she approached the High Court via an email to the Chief Justice. The Court initiated a suo motu case, and on April 30, 2020, the Director General of Police, Assam, was directed to constitute a team to trace the petitioner's husband.

Subsequently, the investigation into his death was handed over to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), which filed a charge sheet pointing towards a conspiracy involving a Superintendent of Police, a Deputy Superintendent, and several lower-ranking personnel.

The Chargesheet alleged that the deceased was taken to Haflong, where his eyes were blindfolded and his hands tied. He was then dragged to the office of the SP where the police party mercilessly interrogated and tortured him in a "CDR Room."

After being heavily injured, the victim was made to spend a night in a town outpost lock-up, and the next morning, he was dragged out by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and forced into a Tata Sumo vehicle. En route to another location called Retzwal, he succumbed to his injuries inside the vehicle.

Thereafter, the dead body was taken to a jungle, where it was buried half-burnt. In the process, the police tried to destroy the evidence of the offence by tearing off pages from the outpost's General Diary to erase any record of his detention.

In her writ plea, the wife of the deceased sought compensation of Rs. 50 Lakh claiming that her husband was the only earning member of the entire family, which consists of her 2 minor daughters and 1 minor son.

She also stated that her husband had a huge outstanding liability of Rs. 95,65,830/- as a loan amount and his per month income was around Rs.5,00,000/-. She claimed that after his death, the family was facing huge financial hardship in maintaining themselves and clearing the outstanding loan.

The State of Assam, however, opposed the ₹50 lakh compensation claim by arguing that the fact of the custodial death was not yet proven as the criminal cases against the Cops were still pending before the trial court.

Furthermore, the State contended that under the Assam Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012, the maximum limit for a death claim was limited to ₹2,00,000.

The High Court, however, did not find merit in the state's arguments. It also relied heavily on landmark Supreme Court Judgments, including the D.K. Basu and Nilabati Behera rulings, to note how the top court had been criticizing instances of custodial deaths and advocating for public law remedies.

The division bench categorically noted that although the trial was yet to start, it is as such established that the named police personnel were involved in the offence of torture and custodial death.

"…firstly, it is not the case of the respondent State that the deceased was arrested as an accused, in connection with a case registered beforehand and secondly, the claim of the petitioner that her husband was wrongfully detained and tortured in police custody so as to coerce any information, was not challenged by filing any affidavit in the matter", the Bench remarked.

The Bench thus opined that it was not necessary to wait until the conclusion of the criminal trial in the present case, and that compensation could be granted before the initiation of the trial or during its pendency.

Regarding compensation, the bench noted that it can be awarded by way of public remedy, either by making monetary adjustments for the wrong done or by way of exemplary damages, exclusive of any amount recoverable in a civil action based on tortious liability.

Turning to the facts of the case to determine the maintenance amount, the bench noted that the actions of the accused cops were barbaric, which had the effect of shaking the judicial conscience.

The bench also took note of the severe financial devastation faced by the widow, who has to raise 3 minor children along with the liability to repay around ₹95 lakh loan amount.

Furthermore, the bench also pointed out that Police personnel had kidnapped the victim, and taken to custody without complying with the mandate of law as prescribed in Sections 50 and 50-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and thereby violating the provisions of Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

In view of these circumstances, the Court awarded ₹20 lakh compensation to make the right to life meaningful. This amount is in addition to the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- already granted to the petitioner as an interim measure during the pendency of the present case.

Importantly, the High Court clarified that this palliative award does not preclude the family from seeking additional damages in a civil court or under the state's compensation scheme.

The bench granted the State the liberty to recover the entire amount from the erring officials found guilty of the offence.

In light of the above observation, the petition was allowed and disposed of.