Madras High Court
P.Rupas (Deceased) vs The Secretary on 26 February, 2021
W.P No.9540 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 26.02.2021
C O RAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Writ Petition No.9540 of 2009
1.P.Rupas (deceased)
Son of Mr.Perumal
2.R.Theresa, W/o P.Rupas
(P2-substituted as LR of the
deceased sole petitioner vide
order dated 27.1.2020 made in
W.M.P. No.4505/2020) ... Petitioner
vs.
The Secretary,
Public (L & O-A) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to enhance
the monetary compensation to the petitioner by Rs.10,00,000/- for custodial
death of the petitioner's son namely Stephen in the hands of Police Officials
belong to Namakkal Police Station on 21.06.1995.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ramkumar
For Respondent : Mr.G.K.Muthukumar, Spl.G.P.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1 of 11
W.P No.9540 of 2009
ORDER
The facts are largely undisputed in this case. The original
Petitioner was the father of the deceased. His son, Stephen, died in police
custody at the Namakkal Police Station on 21.06.1995, and a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- was claimed by the father as enhanced monetary
compensation. While the writ petition was pending, the original Petitioner
died and was substituted by his wife, i.e., the deceased Stephen's mother.
Pursuant to Stephen's death, the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Namakkal,
conducted an inquiry under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 (the Cr.P.C.) and submitted a report to the effect that the Petitioner's
son was tortured by the police. Based on the said report, a charge sheet was
filed against the Sub-Inspector of Police and three Constables belonging to
the Namakkal Police Station. The case was prosecuted before the learned
Principal Judge, Salem and culminated in the conviction of the Sub-
Inspector of Police and three Constables, who were awarded the punishment
of life imprisonment.
2. Shortly after the death of the Petitioner's son, a sum of
Rs.50,000/- was paid to the original Petitioner from the Tamil Nadu Chief
http://www.judis.nic.in
2 of 11
W.P No.9540 of 2009
Minister's Relief Fund. Such payment was received pursuant to
G.O.Ms.No.824 dated 19.07.1996. After the judgment of the criminal court,
which was pronounced on 19.12.2000, the original Petitioner submitted
several representations between the years 2001 and 2005 requesting for
reasonable compensation. Reference may be made to the notice issued on
behalf of the original Petitioner by his lawyer on 17.05.2005. By this notice,
the official Respondents were called upon to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as
compensation. The present writ petition was filed on account of the reply
dated 19.07.2005 from the Secretary to Government stating that a sum of
Rs.50,000/- was sanctioned and paid in the year 1996 and that, therefore, it
is not possible to sanction any further amount as compensation.
3.The learned counsel for the Petitioner adverted to the above facts
and contended that the admitted position is that the Petitioner's son died in
police custody. In the criminal proceedings that were instituted subsequent
thereto, the guilt of the accused police officials was established beyond
reasonable doubt, thereby resulting in their conviction and sentencing to life
imprisonment. Thus, the learned counsel contends that the culpability of the
Government has been established beyond doubt and that the logical
http://www.judis.nic.in
3 of 11
W.P No.9540 of 2009
corollary is that the Government is obligated to pay just and reasonable
compensation to the Petitioner.
4. With regard to the delay in filing the writ petition, the learned
counsel submits that the judgment in the criminal proceedings was
pronounced on 19.02.2000. Shortly thereafter, the Petitioner submitted
representations to the District Collector, Namakkal, claiming compensation.
Finally, a reply dated 19.07.2005 was received from the Government
rejecting the claim for compensation. In the facts and circumstances, he
contends that the delay has been duly explained and that the Petitioner
cannot be non-suited on account of delay especially in the facts and
circumstances.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader admits that the facts
and circumstances leading to the death of the Petitioner's son are truly tragic.
In recognition of the State's obligation, he submits that G.O.Ms.No.823 was
issued on 19.07.1996 and pursuant thereto, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was
paid to the Petitioner in the year 1996, as evidenced by the documents on
record. He further submits that the sum of Rs.50,000/- would appear meagre
http://www.judis.nic.in
4 of 11
W.P No.9540 of 2009
at this distant point of time, but was a substantial sum in the year 1996. He
also points out that the said sum of Rs.50,000/- was duly recovered from the
police officials who were responsible for the horrific incident, in specific
proportions, as specified in the above G.O. Consequently, he contends that it
is not possible to consider the Petitioner's request for additional
compensation at this juncture. Indeed, he submits that it would be
impossible to recover it from the culpable police officials at this distant point
of time. For all these reasons, he submits that the writ petition is liable to be
rejected.
6. The responsibility of the Government and its officials for the
tragic death of the Petitioner's son has been established beyond reasonable
doubt in this case. Indeed, it is the admitted position that the Petitioner's son
died while in custody at the Namakkal Police station and that such death
was caused by the convicted police officials. Therefore, the only question
that arises for adjudication is: whether the petition is liable to be rejected on
the ground of delay or for any other reason? The Petitioner's son died on
21.06.1995 and the sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid some time towards the end
of the year 1996. While it is true that the cause of action to claim
http://www.judis.nic.in
5 of 11
W.P No.9540 of 2009
compensation arose immediately upon the custodial death of the Petitioner's
son, it cannot be lost sight of that the culpability of the specific police
officials, who were charged with murder, had not been established at that
time. For instance, it was theoretically possible that the Petitioner's son
committed suicide while in police custody or met with an accidental death.
It is only upon the conclusion of the proceedings before the criminal court in
the year 2000 that it was established beyond all reasonable doubt that the
death of the Petitioner's son was neither an accident nor due to suicide but
was caused by the convicted police officials. Clearly, this enhanced the
liability and responsibility of the Government inasmuch as it was no longer
merely payment of compensation for custodial death, but payment of
compensation for custodial death caused by the convicted police officials.
Therefore, the Petitioner clearly had a fresh cause of action after the
judgment was delivered by the criminal court at least as regards the claim for
enhanced compensation. Although there is some delay in filing the writ
petition even when reckoned from the date of the judgment of the criminal
court, several representations were issued between 2001 and 2005 and,
eventually, the Government rejected the Petitioner's claim on 19.07.2005. In
http://www.judis.nic.in
6 of 11
W.P No.9540 of 2009
the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is not liable to be rejected for
that reason.
7. The next question is whether the writ petition is liable to be
rejected because Rs.50,000/- had been paid as compensation earlier. The
contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the sum of
Rs.50,000/- was a reasonable sum in 1996 is not completely devoid of
merit, but the question remains whether such sum constituted just
compensation in the facts and circumstances. In my view, even after
reckoning the cost of living and value of money in 1996, it cannot be said
that the payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- constituted just compensation for
the horrific death of the Petitioner's son. The said sum appears to have been
paid from and out of the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. Indeed, there is no
indication in the relevant documents that it was paid as full and final
compensation. Besides, as stated earlier, at that point of time, the culpability
of the police officials had not been established. Therefore, it should be
reckoned as ex-gratia compensation and not full compensation to the
Petitioner.
http://www.judis.nic.in
7 of 11
W.P No.9540 of 2009
8. Upon the death of Stephen's father while the writ petition was
pending, the sole Petitioner today is the widow of the original Petitioner and
the mother of the deceased. Keeping in mind the totality of facts and
circumstances, the Petitioner is entitled to additional compensation. In
arriving at this conclusion, I have taken into account the now firmly
entrenched position that a public law remedy, including by way of
compensation, is available to a person aggrieved by a custodial death. By
way of precedent, it is sufficient to cite In re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382
Prisons, (2017) 10 SCC 658, wherein all relevant judgments were surveyed.
9. All that remains is the determination of quantum of
compensation. The deceased was about 19 years old when the incident
occurred and he had his entire adult life ahead of him. While his life can
never be resurrected, some succour, however inadequate in context, should
be extended to his mother. Sufficient particulars are not available with regard
to the employment status of the deceased or even with regard to his
educational status. Therefore, it is difficult to apply the multiplier or adopt
any other precise method to arrive at just compensation. More than 10 years
have lapsed after the filing of the writ petition and the diminishing value of
http://www.judis.nic.in
8 of 11
W.P No.9540 of 2009
money in light of inflation cannot be lost sight of. On the other scale, one
must weigh the receipt of a sum of Rs.50,000/- by the original Petitioner in
the year 1996, and bear in mind that such sum was not nominal or negligible
at that point of time. As pointed out by the learned Special Government
Pleader, it may not be possible for the Government to recover anything
further from the culpable Government servants. Nonetheless, such inability
to recover does not per se absolve the Government of liability although it is a
material factor in deciding on the quantum of compensation given that some
delay is attributable to the Petitioner. Thus, after taking into account all the
material facts and circumstances cumulatively, I am of the view that the
payment of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- would constitute just compensation to
the current Petitioner. The Respondents are directed to pay the said sum to
the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. In case the said sum is not paid within two months, it will
carry interest at 9% per annum from the expiry of two months until payment
thereof to the Petitioner.
http://www.judis.nic.in
9 of 11
W.P No.9540 of 2009
10. W.P. No.9540 of 2009 is allowed on the above terms. There
will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is
closed.
26.02.2021
Speaking Order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kal
To
The Secretary,
Public (L & O-A) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
http://www.judis.nic.in
10 of 11
W.P No.9540 of 2009
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
kal
Writ Petition No.9540 of 2009
26.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
11 of 11
