Jogendra Nath Saikia vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 4779 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Jogendra Nath Saikia vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 22 August, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

                                                                       Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010010552013




                                                                undefined

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : WP(C)/5254/2013

            JOGENDRA NATH SAIKIA
            S/O LT. BAPUTA SAIKIA, R/O TORFAT, P.O. BAMBORAHI, P.S. GOLAGHAT,
            DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM.

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
            REP. COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME
            DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

            2:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS
            ASSAM
             KHANAPARA
             GUWAHATI-22.

            3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DISTRICT JAIL
             GOLAGHAT DISTRICT JAIL
             GOLAGHAT
            ASSAM



                                        BEFORE

                Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

Advocate for the petitioner      : Shri M Dutta, Advocate
Advocate for the respondents      : Ms M. Barman, GA, Assam.

Date of hearing                  : 31.07.2025
Date of judgment                 : 22.08.2025
                                                                        Page No.# 2/9



                                 JUDGMENT & ORDER

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following relief:

"Under the circumstances explained above, it is therefore prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records and issue rule to the respondents to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus shall not be issued with the following directions:

1. Directing the authorities to conduct a Judicial Inquiry or an inquiry by an impartial agency in to the entire case so that the actual truth will be unearthed and the responsibility could be fixed on the persons for whose negligence the petitioner's son died premature without any treatment and impose adequate penalty on the persons responsible for the same;

2. To direct the Respondents to grant adequate compensation to the petitioner for the death of his son;

-AND-

Pending disposal of the rule, Your Lordships may be pleased to issue directions to the Respondents to grant adequate compensation to the petitioner for the death of his son for ends of justice;

And for this act, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."

2. As per the facts projected, the son of the petitioner was arrested on 19.06.2012 in connection with Golaghat P.S. Case No. 09/2012 corresponding to GR Case No. 12/12 under Section 376/420 of the IPC and was remanded to judicial custody on 02.07.2012. However, unfortunately, on 31.07.2012 he had expired at about 12.35 AM after midnight. The post-mortem was done and as per the report given by the Doctor, the son of the petitioner had died due to Coronary disease. The viscera was however preserved which was to be sent for Page No.# 3/9

forensic examination. There was an enquiry by an Executive Magistrate dated 14.09.2023 which did not indicate any negligence for foul play. The present petition was accordingly filed seeking an impartial inquiry and also for compensation.

3. On 23.01.2024, the following order was passed:

"...

9. Accordingly, this Court in the interest of justice directs the District Judge, Golaghat to conduct an enquiry and submit the report before this Court by 06.05.2024. The terms of reference for making enquiry are:

(i) Whether there was any negligence on the part of the Jail authorities of the District Jail, Golaghat in providing the adequate medical facilities to the son of the petitioner which led to the death of the petitioner's son?

(ii) Whether the death of the petitioner's son had occurred due to cardiomyopathy along with coronary artery rapture or for any other cause?

..."

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the learned District Judge, Golaghat had conducted an enquiry, examined witnesses and after consideration of the materials on record had issued a report dated 06.08.2024. In the said report, however, it has been opined that there is no negligence which could be established and the death was due to cardio-disease.

5. I have heard Shri M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. M. Barman, GA, Assam.

6. Shri Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that public law remedy is available for seeking compensation in case of custodial death. He has submitted that though an enquiry was conducted in terms of the direction of this Court passed on 23.01.2024, the said enquiry is not conclusive as there was no findings on the aspect of the viscera of the deceased not being Page No.# 4/9

examined. He has submitted that the post-mortem report itself is not conclusive which mentions that the viscera was sent for FSL examination. By drawing the attention of this Court to the report of the Executive Magistrate which has been enclosed to the petition, the learned counsel has submitted that though the aforesaid report may not give an indication of any foul play, the relevant aspect is with regard to non-conducting of a forensic examination on the viscera. He has submitted that an adverse presumption is liable to be drawn as in spite of the recommendation made by the Doctor for having a forensic examination done, no such examination was done. He has submitted that the enquiry caused by the learned District Judge pursuant to the order of this Court only confines to the Cardio issue and other issues have not been discussed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed on 30.10.2024 by the petitioner after submission of the Enquiry Report by the learned District Judge. He has submitted that though certain witnesses have been examined by the learned District Judge, the co- prisoners were not examined and accordingly, the aspect of death by poisoning cannot be ruled out. He has also raised the apprehension that it may be a move to protect the jail authorities who had acted negligently.

8. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following case laws:

(i) Swarna Kalita vs. State of Assam and Ors. [Judgment dt 06.03.2003 in WP(C)/6170/1999];

(ii) Bheduki Buragohain vs. State of Assam and Ors. [2013(2) GLT 370];

(iii) In re vs State of Assam & Ors. [2017 (2) GLT 636];

Page No.# 5/9

(iv) Bohagi Chutia and Ors. vs the Union of India and Ors. [Judgment dated 22.12.2022 in WP(Crl.)9/2017]

9. In the case of Swarna Kalita (supra), this Court had granted compensation in case of custodial death.

10. In the case of Bheduki (supra), this Court has reiterated that public law remedy would be available for claiming compensation for custodial deaths.

11. In the case reported in 2017 (2) GLT 636 such compensation was granted which however was preceded by a report of the Human Rights Commission which came to a finding that the death was unnatural.

12. The Division Bench in the case of Bohagi (supra) had relied upon the report of a Judicial Enquiry in which it was opined that the death was by firing and the findings were agreed upon and therefore compensation was granted.

13. Per contra, Ms M. Barman, learned Government Advocate has submitted that though there would be no dispute that a public law remedy can be invoked for seeking compensation for custodial deaths, there has to be cogent reasons for seeking such a relief. She has submitted that the post-mortem report has in clear terms laid down that the death was a result of Cardio failure. She submits that though there was a recommendation for examination of the viscera there is no such report. It is submitted that the fact of not conducting such examination would not lead to a conclusion of negligence on the part of the authorities.

14. By drawing the attention of this Court to the post-mortem report, the learned State Counsel has submitted that the incident had occurred at 12.30 AM and within the shortest possible time, the Doctor had arrived and had declared the deceased dead. As regards the aspect that the enquiry conducted by the learned District Judge, Golaghat pursuant to the order passed by this Court that Page No.# 6/9

the co-prisoners were not examined, the learned State Counsel has submitted that the petitioner who was present in the said enquiry had never prayed for any such summons to be issued. Rather the petitioner had participated in the same without any objection. She has also submitted that the same food was given to the petitioner's son and all the inmates and therefore the aspect of any poisoning is totally ruled out. She has further submitted that in case of Cardiac Arrest, the death happens almost immediately and the same is also fortified by the fact that on the previous day, the deceased was produced before the learned Court and he did not make any complaints of ill-treatment or assault while in judicial custody.

15. The rival submissions advanced have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court including the LCR have been carefully perused.

16. There is no dispute to the proposition that public law remedy can be invoked to seek compensation for custodial death and in this regard, the landmark case of Nilabati Behera @ Lauta Behera (Through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) vs. State of Orissa reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746 can be referred to wherein the following observations have been made. It may be mentioned that the Apex Court had taken into consideration the previous case laws on the field.

"16. It follows that a claim in public law for compensation for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the Constitution, is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection of such rights, and such a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a constitutional remedy provided for the enforcement of a fundamental right is 'distinct from, and in addition to the remedy private law for damages for the tort' resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right. The defence of sovereign Page No.# 7/9

immunity being inapplicable, and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights, there can be no question of such a defence being available in the constitutional remedy. It is this principle which justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State or its servants in the purported exercise of their powers, and enforcement of the fundamental right is claimed by resort to the remedy in public law under the Constitution by recourse to Arts. 32 and 226 of the Constitution. This is what was indicated in Rudul Sah (AIR 1983 SC 1086) and is the basis of the subsequent decisions in which compensation was awarded under Arts. 32 and 226 of the Constitution, for contravention of fundamental rights."

17. It is however required to be noted that in the aforesaid case of Nilabati Behera (supra), the facts which have been recorded in the judgment would reveal that there were multiple injuries on the body of the deceased and the face was completely damaged. In fact, all the injuries found in the post-mortem report were extracted in the judgment.

18. In the conspectus of the aforesaid discussions, it would be required to examine as to whether a case of custodial torture or negligence has been made out which led to the death of the son of the petitioner.

19. In the instant case, after the death of the son of the petitioner, an inquest was made which was followed by an enquiry by the Executive Magistrate, who had furnished a report dated 06.08.2012. In the said report, it has been stated that no external injuries were found on the deceased who was in Ward No. 1 of the District Jail. It was recorded that the deceased was found to be in good relationship with the inmates and at the moment before his death, he was found gasping from breath. As noted above, an order was passed by this Court on 23.01.2024 directing an enquiry by the learned District Judge, Golaghat and the issues which were to be enquired have already been extracted above. The Page No.# 8/9

learned District Judge, Golaghat had accordingly furnished a report dated 06.08.2024 in which it has been laid down that no negligence could be seen leading to the death of the son of the petitioner and the death was due to Cardiac Arrest. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that viscera could not be sent and there was no conclusive test, the said contention shall not be enough to come to a presumption that the death was caused by poisoning. In fact, it is in the realm of speculation of the petitioner that the death could be a result of poisoning. However, the materials on record including the findings arrived at by the Executive Magistrate in his report dated 06.08.2012 as well as the report of the learned District Judge dated 06.08.2024 would show that no foul play appears to have been there which led to the death of the son of the petitioner.

20. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the co-prisoners have not been examined. Though the learned State Counsel has refuted the aforesaid submission by contending that the petitioner never applied for any summons, this Court is otherwise satisfied with the fact that as many as 10 numbers of witnesses were examined by the learned District Judge who had done the enquiry in terms of the order passed by this Court and all the 10 witnesses appear to be relevant. What is more important is that the enquiry report dated 06.08.2024 of the learned District Judge is not the subject matter of challenge. This Court has also carefully examined the post-mortem report which does not indicate of any injuries on the body of the deceased.

21. With regard to the cases relied upon by the petitioner, this Court has already observed that the proposition of law is well established which however is required to be accompanied by establishing the facts which would justify for a direction for payment of compensation to the petitioner. While the death of the Page No.# 9/9

son of the petitioner is not in dispute, there is no material on record to show that there has been any negligence on the part of the authorities which led to the death. Further, the PM report does not indicate of any injuries on the body of the deceased. The death appears to be because of a cardiac arrest suffered by the deceased and within a very short time of about 10 minutes he had passed away. It is also noted that on the previous day of death, the deceased was produced before the learned Court and there was no complaint of any ill treatment in the jail.

22. This Court is also of the opinion that a writ court is not a Court wherein disputed question of facts can be adjudicated and accordingly, reliance has to be put on the fact finding enquiry order by this Court on 23.01.2024 which culminated in the report dated 06.08.2024 of the learned District Judge, Golaghat. As noted above, the said report has not made any insinuations against the Jail authorities and is otherwise also not the subject matter of any challenge by the petitioner.

23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present case.

24. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.

25. No order as to cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant