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

The Gauhati High Court earlier this week directed the Assam Government to pay an additional ₹20 lakh, apart from ₹5 lakh already paid as interim relief, as 'palliative' compensation to the widow of a businessman who was allegedly abducted, brutally tortured and killed by police personnel in 2020. 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 ...

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

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

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

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers