A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, comprising of Justice Dr S Muralidhar and Justice Biswajit Mohanty, in the case of Purna Chandra Mohapatra and Another v. State of Odisha & Others- directed that a sum of Rupees Five Lakhs be paid by the State of Odisha to one Purna Chandra Mohapatra and his wife as compensation for the avoidable death of Manoj (their son), while in their custody, on account of their (police) negligence. The State cannot exonerate itself from its liability on this score.
Factual Background
This writ petition was filed on 7th November, 2005 seeking, the compensation of Rupees four lakhs to be paid to the Petitioners for the alleged custodial death of their son Manoj Kumar Mohapatra (Manoj).
The Petitioners had earlier filed a Writ petition in October, 2005 in this High Court where the prayer was for directing the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why no action has been taken on the basis of the F.I.R. filed by the Petitioners against Opposite Party No.3 and seeking a fair investigation of the case. That petition, which was to be heard with the present petition was, however, dismissed for non-prosecution on 28th August, 2017.
The Petitioners have also placed on record a copy a fact-finding report of the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties of Dhenkanal and Cuttack treating this to be a custodial death and calling for fair investigation to the F.I.R. No. 145 dated 7th June, 2005 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court opined that the law in regard to the liability of state functionaries for acts of negligence has been well settled in a series of decisions, many of which deal with deaths of persons while in judicial custody.
"These would apply with equal force to a situation of proven case of death while in police custody as a result of negligence of the police. Once a person is in the custody of the police, the security of that person’s life and liberty is in their hands. They are answerable for whatever happens to the person in their custody.”
The SC judgement in the case of D Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1975) 3 SCC 185, was referred to- wherein it was held that:
“The security of one's person against an arbitrary encroachment by the police is basic to a free society and prisoners cannot be thrown at the mercy of policemen as if it were a part of an unwritten law of crimes. Such intrusions are against the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty. ... No person, not even a prisoner, can be deprived of his ‘life’ or ‘personal liberty’ except according to procedure established by law. The American Constitution by the 5th and 14th Amendments provides, inter alia, that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law”. Explaining the scope of this provision, Field J. observed in Munn v. Illinois (1877) 94 US 113 that the term “life” means something more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed. This statement of the law was approved by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Kharak Singh v. The State of UP AIR 1963 SC 1295.””
Justice Krishna Iyer reiterated the essentiality of fundamental rights for jail inmates in Charles Sobraj v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi (1978) 4 SCC 104:
“If a whole atmosphere of constant fear of violence frequent torture and denial of opportunity to improve oneself is created or if medical facilities and basic elements of care and comfort necessary to sustain life are refused then also the humane jurisdiction of the court will become operational based on Article 19. ... prisoners retain all rights enjoyed by free citizens except those lost necessarily as an incident of confinement. Moreover, the rights enjoyed by prisoners under Articles 14, 19 and 21, though limited, are not static and will rise to human heights when challenging situations arise.””
Sunil Batra (I) v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494:
“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 limited liberty left to him is then all the more substantial.”
These decisions, the Court observed, were in cases of custodial deaths or violence while the victims were in police or judicial custody. The liability of state functionaries for acts of omission or commission constituting constitutional tort was extended to deaths or violence that occurred, not necessarily at the hands of the officials, but while in their custody.
D K Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, the Supreme Court observed pertinently:
“Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a policeman arrests him? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest? These questions touch the spinal court of human rights jurisprudence. The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic 'No'. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicted undertrials, detenues and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law.””
Reverting to the case on hand, the Court opined that it was evident from the report of investigation of the police themselves that Manoj remained in police custody from 3.20 am till his death more than seven hours later on 7th June 2005. Even if it was not established that the ante mortem injuries found on his person during post-mortem were caused by the Police, the law of strict liability for the negligence of the police in not meeting the basic minimum standard of care in providing him prompt medical attention would stand attracted. The police have to be held liable for the avoidable death of Manoj, while in their custody, on account of their negligence.
"The Court then perused the two affidavits filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties to find out if any compensation has been paid to the Petitioners for the death of Manoj while he was in the custody of the police. The Court was unable to find any statement to that effect in either of the affidavits. Mrs. S. Pattanayak, learned Additional Government Advocate, then sought time to seek instruction on this aspect. Nevertheless, the Court is of the view that the State Government should pay the compensation for the said custodial death to the parents of the deceased i.e., the Petitioners.”
On the question of the quantum of compensation, the Court opined that the claimants belonged to economically weaker section of the society and have had to suffer the agony of an extraordinarily long wait of over 15 years for justice. The Court directed that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) be paid by the State of Odisha to the Petitioners as compensation for the death of their son while in police custody. The compensation amount if any already paid shall be adjusted against the aforesaid sum and the balance be paid to the Petitioners not later than 8th March, 2021.
Case Details
Name: Purna Chandra Mohapatra and Another vs State of Odisha & Others
Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13774 of 2005
Date of Decision: January 27, 2021
Bench: Justice Dr S Muralidhar and Justice Biswajit Mohanty
Picture Source :
