Case Summary: Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera vs State of Orissa & Others (1993)
(1993) 03 SC CK 0125
In The Supreme Court of India
Case No: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 488 of 1988
Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera (through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) (Appellant)
Vs
The State of Orissa and Others (Respondent)
Date of Decision: 24-03-1993
Bench: Full Bench
Hon'ble Judges: N. Venkatachala, J.; J.S. Verma, J.; A.S. Anand, J.
Final Decision: Dismissed
Citations:
(1993) ACJ 787; AIR 1993 SC 1960; (1993) 76 CLT 98; (1993) CriLJ 2899; (1993) 2 JT 503; (1993) 2 OLR 50; (1993) 2 SCALE 309; (1993) 2 SCC 746; (1993) 2 SCR 581
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=297587
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, mother of Suman Behera, alleged custodial death after her son was taken into police custody on 1.12.1987 by ASI Sarat Chandra Barik and was found dead the next day on a railway track with multiple injuries. She sought compensation for violation of Article 21. The State claimed he escaped custody and was run over by a train. A judicial inquiry by the District Judge concluded it was a custodial death caused by injuries inflicted while in police custody.
Law Points Raised:
1. Whether the death was custodial in nature.
2. Liability of the State to pay compensation for violation of Article 21.
3. Burden of proof on the State in cases of death in custody.
4. Scope of public law remedy under Article 32 for enforcement of fundamental rights.
Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:
Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21, 22(2), 32, 142, 226.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 176, 375(5).
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 141(3).
Judgements Referred:
Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar;
Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India;
Bhim Singh v. State of J&K;
State of Maharashtra v. Ravikant S. Patil.
Obiter Dicta:
Compensation for violation of Article 21 can be awarded by the Supreme Court under Articles 32 and 142 as a public law remedy distinct from private law remedies. The State is strictly liable for custodial deaths and cannot escape liability by blaming individual officers.
Ratio Decidendi:
In cases of custodial death, the burden lies on the State to explain the cause of death. Failure to provide a credible explanation leads to the inference of State liability for violation of Article 21, entitling the victim's family to compensation as a public law remedy.
Final Ruling:
The Court held the death was custodial, caused by multiple injuries while in police custody. The State was directed to pay compensation to the petitioner for violation of the fundamental right to life.
Relevant Paragraph Numbers:
Paras: 1-7, 11-15, 17-20 (findings on custodial death and State liability).
Summary:
This landmark judgment reinforced the principle of State liability for custodial deaths and established that compensation can be awarded under public law for violation of fundamental rights, independent of private law remedies. It placed the burden of proof on the State to explain deaths in custody and emphasized strict adherence to constitutional protections under Article 21.
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=297587