The Chhattisgarh High Court recently ordered ₹1 lakh compensation to the mother of a juvenile offender who died in custody while being lodged in an observation home. While fixing the responsibility of the erring officials, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rajani Dubey delivered judgment.
Facts of the case
In the present case, son of the petitioner, namely Nikhil Yadav @ Maheshwar Yadav (deceased) died on 27.07.2019 under unnatural circumstances while he was in the Observation Home, Nutan Chowk, Sarkanda, Bilaspur. The deceased Juvenile was arrested by the Police, under Section 457 and 380 of the IPC. He was presented before the learned Chief Judaical Magistrate, Bilaspur and was sent to Central Jail, Bilaspur. On an application moved by the Head Constable PS Sarkanda, Bilaspur, learned CJM, on the basis of Aadhar Card and School Certificate of the deceased, found him Juvenile, and immediately vide order dated 25.07.2019, transferred him to the Observation Home on 26.07.2019.
On the next day ie on 27.07.2019, deceased found hanging by a gamcha on the iron rod of ventilator of the room near the bathroom at 6.30 a.m. Information was given to his parents about the said incident at 11 a.m. Parents of the deceased made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur on 07.08.2019 regarding the ill-treatment committed on the Juvenile inmates in the Observation Home.
When no action was taken in the complaint, they filed another complaint to the Inspector General, Bilaspur Division, CG regarding unnatural death of the deceased.
Submission on behalf of petitioner
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent authorities violated the rules. In judicial enquiry, conducted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, it was opined that there was serious irregularities and illegality on the part of the Police authorities, jail authorities, Officers and employees of the Observation home. All concerned authorities violated Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, “JJ Act”). When the deceased was in the Observation Home in another case filed against him, he also complained to his parents that staff members use to abuse physically against juveniles. All guilty Officers and employees should be punished and a direction may be given to pay compensation to petitioner, as she lost her young son.
Submission on behalf of Respondents
Learned Advocate General appearing for the State though strongly opposed the prayer of petitioner, but he fairly submits that as stated in the Judicial Enquiry Report, there are some irregularities in violation of JJ Act, in dealing with the deceased.
Observation of court
The Court perused the judicial enquiry report submitted by the CJM, Bilaspur. After going through the same, it was of the view that the deceased was kept alone in changing room without basic facilities, which is in violation of Rules of JJ Act.
The Hon’ble Court taking into consideration the great harm done to petitioner by the Officers and respondent authorities, also in view of the opinion of Hon’ble Apex Court, said that it is appropriate, in the circumstances, to order the State to pay to the petitioner compensation for the death of Juvenile Nikhil Yadav @ Maheshwar Yadav in Observation home.
The Court, stated, “we think that it is appropriate, in the circumstances, to order the State to pay to the petitioner compensation for the death of Juvenile Nikhil Yadav @ Maheshwar Yadav in Observation home, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) within a period of six months from today.”
Judgment
Further the Hon’ble Court stated, “It is also directed that respondent authorities to ensure compliance of Rules provided under JJ Act, and should take disciplinary proceedings against those found responsible for the death of the deceased and order accordingly.”
The petition was allowed in the above terms.
Case Title: Anita Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Case No.: WPCR No. 1180 of 2019
Coram: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rajani Dubey
Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Priyanka Shukla, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents: Advocate General Satish Chandra Verma, Additional AG Chandresh Shrivastava.
Picture Source :
