Masomat Lalita Devi @ Masomat ... vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3536 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                      W.P.(C) No. 6347 of 2009
                          ........

Masomat Lalita Devi @ Masomat Sarita Devi .... ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing) ............

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, Advocate For the Respondents-State : Mr. Jagdeesh, A.C. to Mr. Rahul Saboo, S.C.-I ........

06/22.09.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Jagdeesh, A.C. to Mr. Rahul Saboo, S.C.-I.

"The petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ / writs, order / order, direction / directions to the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- or Government service as a compensation to petitioner for the death of her husband who has died in jail custody due to the negligence of the respondent authorities who was the only source of living of the petitioner and the petitioner's husband was quite healthy and aged about 32 years and now due to the death of the petitioner's husband, the petitioner and her kid have been starving as there is no other alternative source of income and there is none to look after them in his family and therefore the respondent authorities are fully responsible for the death of the petitioner's husband due to negligent attitude and therefore the action of the respondent authorities is viaolative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner conferred under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

And /Or Any other further relief / reliefs which the petitioner is entitled under facts and circumstances of this writ applications.

And Pass such other order / orders for doing considerable justice to the petitioner."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that husband of the petitioner, Murli Prasad Verma was a convict in Gandey P.S. Case No.48/04 dated 29.09.2007 registered under Section 302/34 IPC, in which after trial in S.T. No.55/2005, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,

F.T.C.-IV, Giridih passed judgment of conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life vide order dated 13.03.2007 and the petitioner was in custody.

The criminal appeal preferred by the convict, Murli Prasad Verma vide Cr. Appeal(DB) No.1516/2007 has been admitted and pending for final disposal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 07.04.2008 husband of petitioner, Murli Prasad Verma, who was in jail custody to serve out his sentence, feel uneasiness and he was brought to the Giridih Hospital, where after a preliminary treatment, the convict has been declared to be dead. The postmortem was conducted on 07.04.2008 at 1.15 P.M. The cause of death could not be ascertained, however, Viscera has been preserved for chemical analysis and the time since death has been mentioned as within 24 hours.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the direction passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 21.06.2019 and 02.08.2019, the counter affidavit has been filed, but the Viscera report has not been annexed therein, however, the Viscera report has been communicated today to him by learned counsel for the State contained in S.F.S.L. Report No.418/09, Ranchi dated 22.12.2009, whereby it has been stated that no metallic, alkaloidal, glycosidal, pesticidal or volatile poison could be detected in the dark brown fluid described above.

The final opinion about the cause of death of Late Murli Pd. Verma (UTP) is as follows:-

1. As per Medical prescription obtained from District Jail Hospital, Giridih the patient had Vomiting, Fever with loss of consciousness for two hours on 07.04.208. The patient was brought to Sadar Hospital, Giridih on same date at 4.25 A.M. in Gasping stage and in shock. He was resuscitated at Sadar Hospital, Giridih but could not be revived and declared dead at 4.40 A.M. on 07.04.08.

2. According to Post Morterm report the cause of death could not be ascertained. Hence Viscera was sent for cytochemical analysis.

3. As per Viscera report obtained from the office of the

director state forensic science laboratory Ranchi Jharkhand- No poison could be detected.

On the basis of above medical prescription PM report and Viscera report the final cause of death might be due to some fatal infection like septic-shock (Septicemia)etc.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from perusal of Annexure-3, it appears that on 07.04.2008 at 3.25 A.M. it was informed to the Jail Authority that convicted prisoner, Murli Prasad Verma is not feeling well and thereafter, Jail authority has taken him to Sadar Hospital, Giridih by vehicle and thus he was brought to Hospital on 07.04.2008 at 4.25 A.M. Thus there was laches on the part of the State in not bringing the patient immediately to the Hospital and thus the patient died because of carelessness on the part of the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of Smt. Nilabati Behera @ Lalit Behera Vs. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746 and also in the case of Shri D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 and has submitted that this Court may grant compensation to the victim in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Jagdeesh, A.C. to Mr. Rahul Saboo, S.C.-I has submitted that inadvertently the Viscera report could not be filed in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 18.07.2019, copy of which has been sent to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as such, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, though it is a mistake that Viscera report was not annexed in the said supplementary counter affidavit.

Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the patient died not because of negligence on the part of the State, rather the State has taken all measures to save the life of the convict prisoner by bringing him to the Sadar Hospital, Giridih providing him the treatment, but ultimately the prisoner died, as such, compensation cannot be awarded unless and until, it is proved that the death was because of certain negligent act committed by the State, as such, compensation cannot be allowed.

Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that from perusal of postmortem report, it appears that no ante-mortem, external or internal injury has been found on the person of the deceased and prior to death, the

convict prisoner was taken to the Hospital by means provided at Giridih Jail. He was admitted in the night itself before the doctor, which will be apparent from the record that prisoner has been admitted at 4.25 A.M. and initial medication and treatment was done, but ultimately, Murli Prasad Verma died at 4.40 A.M. on 07.04.2008, as such, without showing any negligence on the part of the State, compensation cannot be awarded and the petitioner has failed to bring anything on record to suggest that there was any injury on the person of the victim or negligence on the part of the State, as such, petitioner is not entitled for any compensation and the writ petition, being devoid of merit, may be dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials brought on record in the writ petition and Viscera report sent to this court today, supplementary counter affidavit dated 18.07.2019 and the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that even in postmortem report as well as in Viscera report, the cause of death could not be ascertained, but from post-mortem report, it is apparent that prior to death of Murli Prasad Verma, there was no external and internal injury. From the Viscera report it appears that person has not died because of any poisoness substance.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, no case is made out for issuance of writ for grant of compensation against the State. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present case as in those cases, the person was in police custody, here the person is in jail custody and there is no allegation against any specific person of any assault or any act done, whereby the life of Murli Prasad Verma has been threatened.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to issue writ directing the State to pay compensation. Accordingly, the instant writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Jay/-