Telangana High Court
Government Of Telangana vs Smt. Karolla Jayamma on 3 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL No.1331 of 2024
JUDGMENT (Per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara):
Heard Sri Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home
for appellants; Sri C. Prathap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri Palle Sri Harinath, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 and Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae.
2. This Intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated
12.03.2024, wherein, the writ petition preferred by respondent No.1
vide W.P.No.30961 of 2012 has been allowed awarding compensation
of Rs.7,20,000/-. After deducting the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which
has already been paid, the appellants were directed to pay
compensation of 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
respondent No.1.
3. The back ground facts giving rise to the appeal are that on
02.07.2012 morning, the convict prisoner No.9772 i.e. Dasari
Narsimulu has stolen scissors from the prisoner barber and on
04.07.2012, he attacked another convict prisoner No.6917 i.e. Karolla
Venkaiah and five other convict prisoners and caused serious bleeding
injuries. The said Karolla Venkaiah was shifted to Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderabad for treatment and he died on the same day while
undergoing treatment. The deceased Karolla Venkaiah is husband of
respondent No.1.
4. The National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi has
awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the kin of the deceased
convict prisoner No.6917 i.e. Karolla Venkaiah. The said amount has
been disbursed to respondent No.1 and her kin.
5. Upon filing of the aforesaid writ petition seeking compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- by respondent No.1, the appellants herein opposed the
same on the ground that the National Human Rights Commission,
New Delhi directed the Government of Telangana to award
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the next kin of the deceased and the
said compensation has already been disbursed by placing strict
adherence to the Rule No.576 (1) of the Telangana State Prison
Rules, 1979.
6. The learned Single Judge upon hearing both the parties has
awarded compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- to respondent No.1 and
directed the appellants herein to pay Rs.6,20,000/- with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum after deducting an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-,
which has already been paid to respondent No.1.
7. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed
claiming that the Jail authorities have provided sufficient security in
the jail ensuring that prisoners therein do not get harmed and there is
no negligence on the part of the Jail authorities in providing proper
medical treatment to the deceased prisoner in the Jail hospital as well
as in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad.
8. According to the appellants, the death of the deceased Karolla
Venkaiah ought not to have been held as custodial death as the death
occurred while he was undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderabad.
9. Learned Government Pleader for Home for the State of Telangana
appearing for the appellants submitted that as per Rule 576 (1) of the
Telangana State Prison Rules, 1979, compensation has been paid and
therefore, there is no further cause for making payment of
compensation as directed by the learned Single Judge. He further
submitted that application of Minimum Wages Act for determining the
income of a convict prisoner is erroneous. As per G.O.Ms.No.203
Home (Prisons.B) Department, dated 06.08.2010, the Government has
accorded enhanced incentives (wages) at Rs.70/- to Skilled Prisoners
working in open air jails, Rs.50/- to Skilled prisoners working in
prison industries and Misc., and for Rs.30/- to Semi skilled prisoners
employed in prison industries and services like sweeping etc. In case,
the compensation is calculated on the basis of said G.O., it would
amount to Rs.1,02,960/- and the said amount has already been paid
to respondent No.1 pursuant to the order passed by the National
Human Rights Commission, New Delhi.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that there is no
error committed by the learned Single Judge while granting
compensation. He has placed reliance on the decision rendered in
Malkiat Singh vs. State of U.P 1, wherein, formula adopted in Motor
Vehicles Act has been taken in computing compensation to be granted
following death of a convicted prisoner. Further, learned counsel
referred to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a writ petition
(civil) No.406 of 2013 - Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 prisons2
with respect to the various aspects surrounding custodial deaths. He
also made a reference to the Memo issued by the Government of
Karnataka on 07.11.2022 with respect to the policy for payment of
compensation on account of unnatural deaths in the prisons in
Karnataka State. The Government of Karnataka upon examining the
matter has passed G.O.No.HD 148 PRA 2022, Bengaluru, dated
28.09.2022 formulating policy for payment of compensation of
Rs.7,50,000/- on account of unnatural death in the prison due to
1998 (9) SCC 351
2017 (10) SCC 658
quarrel among prisoners and Rs.5,00,000/- on account of unnatural
death in the prison including suicide or any other acts.
11. Learned Amicus Curiae referred to catena of judgments dealing
with payment of compensation on account of custodial deaths ranging
from the years 1993 up to the year 2016. Among said cases, Kewal
Pati v. State of U.P 3, Murti Devi v. State of Delhi and others 4,
State of AP v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy 5, Madina v. State of
Rajasthan 6, Meena Singh v. State of Bihar 7, Tmt. Rohini Lingam v.
State 8 and Amandeep v. State of Punjab 9, deal with instances where
one prisoner was attacked by the co-prisoner leading to death,
depending on circumstances, various amounts of compensation were
awarded. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the compensation
in the early 1990s was about Rs.1,00,000/- followed by a gradual
increase leading to payment of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. In
Nina Rajan Pillai v. Union of India 10, on account of death of a
prisoner due to inadequate medical treatment given by the jail
authorities, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was awarded as
compensation to the wife. In Sabu E.K. v. State of Kerala 11, on
(1995) 3 SCC 600
(1998) 9 SCC 604
(2000) 5 SCC 712
2000 SCC OnLIne Raj 203
(2001) SCC Online Jhar 74
2008 SCC OnLine Mad 1249
2012 SCC OnLine P & H 19844
2011 SCC OnLine Del 2252
(2016) 4 KLJ 105
account of torture of a victim in the police station, who succumbed to
injuries, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was awarded as compensation
to the mother.
12. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. Bhuvan Mohan
Patnaik and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 12, just
because an individual is convicted, he cannot be deprived of human
rights. There may be deprivation of freedom of movement, however,
there can be no deprivation of right to life. When such a right is
violated irrespective of the security arrangements made by the prison
authorities, the attempt made by the appellants to evade responsibility
on the ground that there were adequate measures in place cannot be
countenanced. Further, the deceased Karolla Venkaiah was attacked
in the prison and therefore, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderabad for treatment. Merely on account of death of the
deceased in a Government Hospital while undergoing treatment does
not mean that the death did not occur while the prisoner was in
custody. Even while undergoing treatment, the deceased was in police
custody and therefore, the death of the deceased Karolla Venkaiah in a
Government Hospital followed by a fatal attack in the prison has to be
categorized as custodial death.
(1975) 3 SCC 185
13. A perusal of the submissions made by the learned counsel
shows that an unfortunate happening of custodial death has occurred
and there is no policy in place for dealing with payment of
compensation to the kin of the said victim. In Nilabati Behera v.
State of Orissa 13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the defence of
sovereign 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.
14. Coming to the quantum of compensation, computing
compensation on the basis of formula followed in Motor Vehicle
Accident cases is not new as the said formula was already followed in
the case of Malkiat (supra 1). The policy formulated by the State of
Karnataka vide G.O.No.HD 148 PRA 2022, Bengaluru, dated
28.09.2022, seems to be one and only one in this Country for payment
of compensation on account of unnatural deaths in the prisons in
Karnataka State. In Karnataka State, the amount of compensation
paid for unnatural death on account of quarrel among prisoners to the
kin or legal heirs of the deceased prisoners is Rs.7,50,000/-. The
compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge at Rs.7,20,000/-
is very similar to the compensation awarded in Karnataka State in
(1993) 2 SCC 746
similar instances. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere
with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Before parting with
the matter, we record our appreciation for the valuable assistance
provided by learned Amicus Curiae Sri Vivek Jain.
15. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. The State may
consider framing of policy for payment of compensation to victims of
custodial deaths as done by the State of Karnataka. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 03.02.2025
gvl
