Gurucharan Kaur vs State (Nct Of Delhi) And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 2133 Del

JUDGMENT

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking mandamus for registration of an FIR and also for awarding compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner's husband Sukhvinder Singh was lodged in jail no. 1, Central Jail Tihar and was undergoing sentence in a case FIR No. 264/95, P.S. Tilak Nagar under Section 308/326/329/34 IPC. Sukhvinder Singh fell sick on the night intervening 30th and 31st May, 2000 and his condition became serious on the morning of 31st May, 2000. He was taken to DDU Hospital around 9.30 AM. He died in the hospital while under treatment, by Cardiac Arrest around 3.45 PM. He was declared dead around 4.15 PM on 31st May, 2000. The petitioner alleged that on the night of the 30th and 31st May, 2000 he was not properly attended by the Doctor and he was sent to DDU hospital very late. If the petitioner had been provided proper treatment in the jail in time by the Doctor in charge of the jail hospital, the life of the petitioner could have been saved. The death of the petitioner had taken place due to negligence and carelessness on the part of the officials and the Doctors of the jail. She, therefore, claimed that an FIR should be registered against the erring officials for their gross negligence in providing timely treatment and death of her husband, Sukhvinder Singh. She also prayed for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 7 Lacs to her due to loss and mental shock caused to her due to death of her husband, Sukhvinder Singh.

2. During arguments, the counsel for the petitioner did not press the prayer for registration of FIR and stated that the petitioner would take recourse to filing of an appropriate complaint before the Court of MM. However, he pressed for grant of compensation to the petitioner. Counsel relied upon Ajab Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P 2000 SCC (Criminal) 718 and submitted that the Supreme Court had in this case granted a compensation of Rs.5 Lacs to the petitioner in case of a custodial death. He submitted that this Court should grant compensation in the present case as the present case was also a case of custodial death.

3. It is true that this Court in a criminal Writ Petition had discretion to grant compensation if the Court comes to conclusion that there was gross violation of fundamental rights of the deceased whose custodial death took place due to torture and high handedness of the State Authorities. However, such compensation cannot be granted in a routine manner by the Court and the Court has to guard itself against granting compensation even in those cases where there is no breach of fundamental rights and no custodial torture.

4. In the present case the deceased was in judicial custody in the sense that he was convicted and was lodged in jail to undergo the sentence as awarded by the Court. Jail Authorities were acting as an instrument of the justice system to see that the sentence awarded to the deceased will be undergone by him. In all such cases where convicts are lodged in jail, they are taken care by the Jail Authorities in accordance with the jail manual and the rules and regulations framed for this purpose. Convicts have to spend the period of sentence in jail as jail inmate. During this period, a convict may incur diseases, ailments like any normal person outside jail. It is not that a person inside jail becomes immune from diseases and ailments or enjoys a guarantee of not suffering from ailments. Whenever a person incurs some disease or ailment in the jail, the Jail Authorities are bound to provide him medical aid and take care of the convict. In the present case, SDM, Patel Nagar had conducted an inquiry into the death of deceased. He recorded statements of other jail inmates including father and brother of the deceased, undergoing sentence along with deceased in the Tihar Jail itself.

5. Kanchan Singh is the father of the deceased. He in his statement stated that he received intimation about the ailment of his son that he vomited twice in the night. He took his son to dispensary where duty Doctors advised him to take him to hospital at Jail no. 3. In hospital Doctor thoroughly checked him but could not say something about the condition of Sukhvinder Singh. Sukhvinder Singh earlier had vomited in the ward and asked others to clean the vomit. He was thereafter taken to mental ward and then his father and other prisoners left the place. The statements of other co-prisoners also show that Sukhvinder Singh had vomited during night. He was also using foul language. In the morning, it was found that Sukhvinder Singh had defecated and urinated in the cell itself. He was taken to dispensary of the jail and then to DDU Hospital. SDM came to conclusion that Sukhvinder Singh had developed problem about 30 to 45 minutes after dinner. Doctor was called and on an euquiry made from him by Doctor he stated that he was okay and he refused to take medicine and then went for sleep and nothing unusual was noticed during night. However, in the morning his cloths were found soiled and he was taken to dispensary of Central Jail No. 1 and then was referred to jail hospital at 6.30 AM and from there he was referred to DDU Hospital where he died. There was possibility that a harmful substance or bug could have been fallen in his food while it was kept aside for dinner in his cell and being the summer time, his problem got aggravated due to dehydration.

6. The postmortem report and viscera analysis also showed negative test for common poison. It means that no poisonous substance was added into the meals of the deceased. The death of the deceased was considered caused due to some uncommon poison, i.e., some bug or poisonous insect had entered into the food consumed by him.

7. Considering all the aspects, it is clear that it is not a case of custodial death by torture and seems to be a death suffered by the prisoner after ailment despite possible treatment given to him at jail hospital and DDU Hospital. I do not consider that it was a case where there was a gross violation of the fundamental rights of the prisoner or there was a custodial torture resulting into his death so that this Court should exercise its discretion in writ jurisdiction of granting compensation. I find no force in the prayer made for grant of compensation. The prayer is declined.

8. The Writ Petition is disposed of.