S.P. Singh, J.@mdashIn the instant writ petition the petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased Raja Prasad, has prayed for grant of compensation as her husband admittedly died in police lock up.
2. The petitioner states that on 4.10.2006 at about 7 P.M. some altercation took place between the husband of the petitioner on the one hand and Shankar Das and others on the other hand. Around that time the Officer-Incharge of Mufassil P.S. Respondent No. 6 along with his associates came and arrested Raja Prasad and his cousin Nandu Prasad. On query the respondent No. 6 said that they should be soon let off. The police also arrested Shankar Das and Laxman Das who are respondents 9 and 10. All of them were locked in police Hajat of Muffasil P.S. In the evening the petitioner''s brother-in-law went to the police station to enquire about Raja Prasad and Nandu Prasad. Respondent No. 6 stated that they would be released in the morning. Thereafter the petitioner went to the police station on the following morning at about 5 A.M. She was surprised to find her husband lying unconscious in the police hajat drained in blood; some one in the night had brutally assaulted him with knife. When the informant and her family members sought explanation, the police instead got enraged and assaulted them. The petitioner learnt that police had instituted two cases, one on the statement of Shankar Das being Motihari Mufassil P.S. Case No. 180 of 2006 dated 4.10.2006 and another at the instance of her husband, Raja Prasad being Motihari Mufassil P.S. Case No. 181 of 2006 dated 4.10.2006. Later the police also instituted another case on the statement of her brother-in-law Nandu Prasad on 5.10.2006 at about 8.15 A.M. wherein he alleged that Shankar Das assaulted Raja Prasad in the wee hours of 5.10.2007 in police Hajat. She stated that her husband was taken to hospital where he was declared dead. The post mortem report shows that the deceased died due to stab injury.
3. The State has filed counter affidavit wherein they admits that Shankar Das injured the husband of the petitioner by means of knife inside the Police Hajat as a result of which he died. It would be relevant to quote paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed on 30.4.2007.
9. That it is also relevant to state here that as per station diary entry No. 104 made at 3.40 A.M. on 05.10.2006 the Officer-in-Charge was informed that Raja Prasad and Nandu Sah were injured by Shankar Das by means of Knife inside the Hajat. Thereafter, with great difficulty the assailant, Shankar Das was over powered after un-locking the Hajat. Thereafter, the two injured Raja Prasad and Nandu Sah were sent to Sadar Hospital, Motihari for treatment and their family members were informed.
4. The case of the petitioner is that police in connivance with respondents 9 and 10 brutally assaulted her husband causing his death.
The case of the respondents is that it is not the police but it was Shankar Das who stabbed the petitioner with knife.
5. From the aforesaid fs one thing stands admitted for sure that the husband of the petitioner sustained fatal injuries in the police lock up.
6. In the background of this case, the issue is whether the State ing through instrumentality or agency would be liable to pay monetary compensation if some one else also locked in police hajat causes fatal injuries by deadly weapon. Once a police arrest a person and keep him in its Hajat, it becomes its custodia legis. The safety of the prisoner, security and protection of his life becomes a fundamental and sacred responsibility of the State, ing through its instrumentality. This responsibility becomes more onerous, if persons locked are draggers drawn with each other and to the knowledge of the police.
7. In the instant case even assuming the case of the respondents to be true, a co-detenu stabbed petitioner''s husband in the Police Hajat, just in front of their nose. All these, points towards the slackness and callous attitude on the part of the respondents. It is not the case of the respondents that the deceased was wounded outside the Police Station or that he was injured while he tried to escape from the police lock up. All these fs establish slackness and callous attitude on part of the respondents. The police has failed to observe strict vigilance as a result, a life of a young person aged about 32 years has been lost. It is surprising that weapons like knife have slipped in police Hajat, which was used in stabbing the deceased. The police should be very cautious and adopt all precautionary measures while putting two persons opposed to each other in the same lock up. The better option would be not to put such persons in the same lock up.
8. In view of the aforegoing discussions merely because the police was not the perpetrator of the ual assault, that itself will not be a ground for not holding them equally responsible for the tragedy. The police even in such circumstances cannot be absolved of charge of having failed to protect the life of a person whom they had kept in their own custody.
9. Thus I find that the police is equally responsible for the death of Raja Prasad, the husband of the petitioner and being an instrumentality and agency of the State, the latter would be liable to pay monetary compensation. It may be relevant to notice some of the judgments of Hon''ble Apex Court in this context.
10. In the case of
11. In the case of Smt. Dulari Devi v. State of Bihar 1997 (2) P.L.J.R. 49 the Apex Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the widow of late Rajendra Mandal for the custodial death of her husband.
12. This court finds that the deceased was a young person aged about 32 years and had three minor children. The aforesaid f has not been controverted by the State. If the husband of the petitioner would have been alive, he would have at least earned about Rs. 18,000/- per annum even at moderate rate of Rs. 1500/- per month. As such this Court awards a compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/- to the petitioner. This court directs that the respondent-State of Bihar particularly respondent No. 2 would pay a compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before it, failing which the respondents would be liable to pay simple interest @ 6% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,30,000/-.
13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed.
Let a copy of this order be transmitted to respondent No. 2 by office also.
