Karolla Jayamma, Medak Dist vs Chief Secy Govt Of Ap, Hyd And 3 Ot
2024 Latest Caselaw 1039 Tel

Telangana High Court

Karolla Jayamma, Medak Dist vs Chief Secy Govt Of Ap, Hyd And 3 Ot on 12 March, 2024

       * HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

              + WRIT PETITION No.30961 of 2012

% Date: 12.03.2024

Between:

Smt. Karolla Jayamma.                                   ... Petitioner

                                AND

Government of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by the Chief Secretary,
Secretariat at Hyderabad.
and others.
                                                     ... Respondents


! Counsel for the Petitioner      :   Sri Palle Sriharinath


^ Counsel for the Respondents : Government Pleader for Home


> HEAD NOTE:


? Cases referred

  1. AIR 1974 SUPREME COURT 2092
  2. (1979) 1 SCR 302
  3. 1996 (2) ALT 504 = 1996 CriLJ 2854
  4. AIR 1989 AP 235
  5. (1995) 3 SCC 600
  6. (2022) 7 SCC 203
  7. AIR 2009 SC 3104
  8. (2017) 6 SCC 680
                                   2


          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


                WRIT PETITION No.30961 of 2012

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking to issue a Writ of

Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in denying the

claim of compensation to the Petitioner on account of death of her

husband by name Karolla Venkaiah (Prisoner No.6917) in Central

Prison at Cherlapally, Rangareddy District, as illegal, arbitrary,

discriminatory and without jurisdiction and violative of the

fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India and consequently, prayed this Court to direct

the Respondents to award Compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten

Lakhs only) to the Petitioner on account of death of her husband

Karolla Venkaiah in Central Prison at Cherlapally, Rangareddy

District and for other reliefs.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the wife of Karolla

Venkaiah, who was convicted in S.C.No.119 of 2010 by the learned

III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), at Medak and

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under

Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The said Karolla Venkaiah, was admitted

in Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District on 11.05.2012

and was assigned Convict Prisoner No.6917. It is further case of

the petitioner that questioning the conviction and sentence

awarded in S.C.No.119 of 2010, her husband Karolla Venkaiah

preferred Criminal Appeal No.506 of 2012 on the file of this Court.

While the said Karolla Venkaiah was undergoing sentence of

imprisonment in the prison, on 04.07.2012, the Co-prisoner i.e,

Dasari Narsimulu S/o. Ramulu, Convict Prisoner No.9772 attacked

the Karolla Venkaiah and other inmates with a sharp object, due to

which Karolla Venkaiah, succumbed to injuries while undergoing

treatment in Gandhi Hospital at 6:30PM. It is further case of the

petitioner that her husband-Karolla Venkaiah died due to the

injuries inflicted by the Co-prisoner No.9772 and the incident

occurred due to gross negligence of the Jail authorities, who failed

to prevent the assailant from possessing the sharp weapon while in

custody and due to possession of such object, the Co-prisoner

could attack the deceased and other innocent persons resulting in

death of her husband-Karolla Venkaiah. It is further case of the

petitioner that her husband was an agriculturist and on account of

his untimely death, she was put to hardship suffering mentally and

financially and that the State is liable to pay compensation under

public law remedy for deprivation of life and liberty of the

deceased. Therefore, the petitioner prayed this Court to direct the

respondents to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to her on

account of death of her husband-Karolla Venkaiah in Central

Prison at Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District.

3. The Respondent No.4, who is working as Superintendent,

Central Prison, Cherlapally, has filed counter affidavit on behalf of

respondents and stated that the petitioner's husband-Karolla

Venkaiah S/o. Pardesh, (Convict Prisoner No.6917), aged about 55

years, R/o. Kusangi Village, Tekmal Mandal, Medak District, was

convicted for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in S.C.No.119 of 2010

on the file of III Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy on

10.05.2012 and he was admitted in Central Prison, Cherlapally on

11.05.2012 and undergoing the sentence of imprisonment. It is

further stated that the Convict Prisoner No.9772 Dasari Narsimulu

S/o. Ramulu was shifted to Central Prison, Cherlapally on transfer

from District Jail, Nizamabad on 08.07.2012 and he was

undergoing sentence of imprisonment for the offences under

Sections 307, 498A, 420 IPC and Section 20(B)(1) of NDPS Act. It is

further stated that on the morning of 02.07.2012, said Dasari

Narsimulu, stolen broken scissors from barber prisoner and

secretly kept them in the bushes near his barrack and on

03.07.2012 during the lockup time he took the broken scissors

from the hidden place and kept them outside the window of his

barrack and on 04.07.2012 at about 4:20 AM, he attacked the

deceased Karolla Venkaiah and five other convict prisoners, who

were in deep sleep by using the said scissors. Immediately, the

injured were shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for better

treatment and while undergoing treatment, the Convict Prisoner

Karolla Venkaiah expired at about 6:10 AM on 04.07.2012. It is

further stated that a case in Crime No.441/2012 was registered

against the Convict Prisoner Dasari Narsimulu for the offence

under Sections 302, 307 IPC and Section 176 Cr.P.C.

4. Pending adjudication of the writ petition, the respondent

No.4 has filed additional counter affidavit inter alia stating that the

unnatural death of a prisoner is governed by Rule No.576 (1) of the

Telangana State Prison Rules, 1979 (for short "Prison Rules") and it

reads as follows:

"Rule No. 576(1) - In case a prisoner dies in prison due to causes other than natural causes or if the cause of death is not known or if the death has occurred due to suicide or violence or accident or whenever there is any doubt or complaint or question concerning the cause of death of any prisoner, the Superintendent shall inform the officer in charge of the Police Station, having jurisdiction. The Superintendent shall immediately give intimation o the nearest Magistrate empowered to hold inquests. The Magistrate shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable persons, shall make an investigation and draw up a report regarding the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of injury as may be found

on the body, and stating in what manner of by what weapon or instrument (if any) such marks appear to have been inflicted."

5. It is further stated that in accordance with the said rule, the

institution has filed a case in Crime No.441/2012 dated

04.07.2012 on the file of Kushaiguda Police Station and the

incident was also reported to the District Collector & District

Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District vide letter No.CPCh/RC-I/8101-

04/2012 dated 04.07.2012. It is further stated that the subject

incident was also reported to the National Human Rights

Commission(NHRC), New Delhi, vide crash Message No.CPCh/RC-

I/8105-13/2012, dated 04.07.2012 and a case was registered vide

NHRC Case No.792/1/19/2012-JCD. It is further stated that a

Magisterial Enquiry was conducted into the incident on 19.12.2013

by the Collector & District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, and

the Magisterial Enquiry Report was submitted to the National

Human Rights Commission, New Delhi by the Collector & District

Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District. It is further stated that,

subsequent to the enquiry in the incident, the National Human

Rights Commission, New Delhi, directed the Government of

Telangana to award a compensation of Rs.1.00 Lakh to the next of

kin of the deceased and accordingly, compensation of Rs. 1.00

Lakh was paid to Smt.Karrolla Jayamma (petitioner herein),

W/o.Venkaiah, R/o. Kusangi Village of Tekamal Mandal, Medak

District, on 15.02.2018, vide Cheque No.091302, Dt: 15.02.2018,

by the Tahsildar, Tekamal Mandal, Medak District, as confirmed by

the Collector & District Magistrate, Medak District, vide

Lr.No.C1/695/ 2017 Dt: 18.05.2018. It is stated that in view of

paying the said amount as compensation and as the respondents

have strictly adhered to Rule 576(1) of Prison Rules, the present

writ petition is devoid of merits and ultimately prayed to dismiss

the writ petition.

6. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the

respective parties and perused the record.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently

contended that the cause of death of the deceased was only

because of the negligence of the respondents as they have not

taken all the precautions to prevent the subject incident.

Therefore, all the respondents, who are vicariously responsible for

the death of the deceased, are liable to pay the compensation to the

petitioner.

8. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Home

appearing for the respondents has submitted that the respondent

No.4 and his officials have taken all the precautions and strictly

adhered to the Prison Rules and there is no negligence on their

part. It is further submitted that respondents are no way

responsible for the death of the deceased and disowned any

responsibility to pay compensation on that account as in the

absence of any specific finding to the effect that the prison staff

caused the death by any torturous acts, the State could not be

made vicariously responsible for the death of such deceased which

occurred on account of the act of the co-prisoner.

9. The question that falls for consideration in this writ petition

is, whether the case is one of deprivation of life or there is any

infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the Jail

authorities being the custodian of the prisoners are vicariously

liable to pay compensation.

10. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner's husband i.e,

Karolla Venkaiah (deceased), was convicted in S.C.No.119 of 2010

by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), at

Medak on 10.05.2012 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for

life for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and on

11.05.2012, he was admitted in Central Prison, Cherlapally. While-

so on 04.07.2012, the Convict Prisoner No.9772 Dasari Narsimulu

S/o. Ramulu attacked the deceased with a sharp object, due to

which, the deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing

treatment in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. It is also an

admitted fact that a case in Crime No.441/2012 dated 04.07.2012

was registered against Dasari Narsimulu on the file of Kushaiguda

Police Station, for the offences under Sections 302, 307 IPC and

Section 176 Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the directions of the National

Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, the Government of

Telangana paid compensation of Rs.1.00 Lakh to the petitioner on

15.02.2018, vide Cheque No.091302, Dt:15.02.2018, and the same

was confirmed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Medak

District, vide Lr.No.C1/695/2017 Dt:18.05.2018. It is settled

principle of law that right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the

Constitution of India is the most precious human rights and it

forms the ark of all other rights. The fundamental rights

guaranteed under Constitution of India including right to life in

Article 21 of the Constitution of India are equally available to a

person who is convicted of a crime and is in prison. This aspect

was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.Bhuvan

Mohan Patnaik v. State of A.P 1., wherein it was observed as

follows:

"Convicts are not, by mere reason of the conviction, denuded of all the fundamental rights which they otherwise possess. A compulsion under the authority of law following upon a conviction, to live in a prison- house entails by its own force the deprivation of fundamental freedoms like the right to move freely throughout the territory of India

AIR 1974 SUPREME COURT 2092

or the right to 'practice' a profession...... But the Constitution guarantees other freedoms like the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property....... Likewise even a convict is entitled to the precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution that he shall not be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."

11. The said principle was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration 2, wherein it was

held as follows:

"It is no more open to debate that convicts are not wholly denuded of their fundamental rights. No iron curtain can be drawn between the prisoner and the Constitution. Prisoners are entitled to all constitutional rights unless their liberty has been constitutionally curtailed.......... However, a prisoner's liberty is in the very nature of things circumscribed by the very fact of his confinement. His interest in the liberty left to him is then all the more substantial".

12. Relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a

Division Bench of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and

others vs. Suramalla Ramulu and others 3, held that the State is

liable to pay compensation on account of the death of prisoner

which resulted due to failure of authorities to protect him.

13. It is settled law that apart from the Constitutional

safeguards, the jail manuals and the rules framed enjoin the

officials administering the jails to ensure safety of prisoners. The

prisoner being entrusted to their care is entitled to protection and

(1979) 1 SCR 302

1996 (2) ALT 504 = 1996 CriLJ 2854

it is the responsibility of the prison officials to ensure the life and

safety of every inmate of the jail including those who may have

been convicted and serving sentence. These authorities are not

absolved of this responsibility merely because the prisoners had

been convicted by a Court of law and were serving sentence. In

plethora of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various

High Courts held that a prisoner, is not denuded of his

fundamental rights and is not deprived of his constitutional right

guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India except to

the extent he has been deprived of it in accordance with law.

14. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in Challa

Ramkonda Reddy v. State of A.P. Rep. by District Collector,

Kurnool 4, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kewal Pati vs.

State of U.P. and others 5, held that the State is vicariously liable

for the death of inmate of the prison.

15. In the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

and this Court as referred supra, there is no dispute that this

Court can exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India to award monetary compensation for contravention of

fundamental rights of the citizen, who is undergoing sentence of

imprisonment. The law is settled for payment of compensation,

AIR 1989 AP 235

(1995) 3 SCC 600

however for deciding the quantum, there is no formula for

custodial death or the death which occurred while serving the

sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, this Court safely follows the

method adopted in MVOP cases and relies on judgment in Sanjay

Gupta and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 6, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that violation of life and personal

liberty, compensation to the victims to be computed in accordance

with principles of just compensation as in the case of deciding

claims under the Motor Vehicles Act by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal.

16. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the cases referred supra, as the deceased-Karolla

Venkaiah, was aged about 55 years on the date of incident and no

specific earnings was mentioned by the petitioner, the earnings of

the deceased are fixed as per the notification issued by the State

Government vide G.O.Ms.No.11 labour Employment Training and

Factories (Lab.II) Department dated 17.01.2012, for the unskilled

labour as Rs.7170.65. The said amount is rounded off to

Rs.7,200/-. Annual income of the deceased would come to

Rs.86,400/- (Rs.7,200/- x 12=Rs.86,400/-). Considering the

dependency of the deceased, 1/3rd income of the deceased has to

(2022) 7 SCC 203

be deducted towards his personal expenses and thereby, the net

annual income of the deceased would come Rs.57,600/-(Rs.86,400

- Rs.28,800). According to the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation 7, the multiplier for the deceased, who is

aged 55 years is '11'. By applying the said multiplier '11', the total

loss of dependency of the deceased comes to Rs.6,33,600/-

(Rs.57,600 x 11). Further, as per the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v.

Pranay Sethi and others 8, Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000

should be awarded under conventional heads namely, loss of

estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, respectively. It

was further observed that the said amount should be enhanced at

the rate of 10% on percentage basis for every three years.

Therefore, following the decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra),

an amount of Rs.84,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the

conventional heads. Thus the total compensation comes to

Rs.7,17,600/- and the same is rounded off to Rs.7,20,000/-. An

amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was already paid as compensation

to the petitioner vide Cheque No.091302, Dt:15.02.2018, is

deducted from the total compensation of Rs.7,20,000/-, then the

compensation payable to the petitioner by the respondents comes

AIR 2009 SC 3104

(2017) 6 SCC 680

to Rs.6,20,000/-. The petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of

6% per annum from the date of death of deceased i.e, on

04.07.2012 to till realization on the compensation amount of

Rs.6,20,000/-.

17. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the

respondents are directed to pay compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-

with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of death of

deceased i.e, 04.07.2012 to till realization, to the petitioner, within

a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

_________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 12.03.2024 Note: L.R Copy to be marked: YES/NO (b/o) scs