CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

27 Year Old Victim Custodial Death The Order Of ₹10 Lakh Compensation For Family Members: Tripura HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


D.D: 22 June 2022

Tripura High Court ordered the state government to pay Rs 10 lakh in compensation to the family members of Jamal Hossain, who allegedly died as a result of police lockup torture.

The bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice Satya Gopal Chattopadhyay ruled that the deceased's widow, children, and mother are entitled to an equal portion of the compensation.

Jamal Hossain (Victim), who was 27 years old and working as a Cleaner in Dubai, returned home in September 2021 to spend his vacation with his mother, wife, and children.

He was scheduled to return to Dubai on September 22, 2021; however, on September 14, 2021, at approximately 11.30 p.m., a police team consisting of 6/7 officers arrived at his home, apprehended him, and began beating him before taking him to the police station.

The next day, Hossain's family was informed that he had died in the jail.

According to allegations, Jamal Hossain, who was in perfect health prior to his arrest, died in police custody a few hours after his arrest due to torture. The deceased's wife also filed a written FIR under Sections 304 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitioning the court with the instant writ petition, the petitioners demanded Rs. 50 lakhs in compensation and appropriate action against those responsible for Jamal Hossain's death.

The judge's observations

The court considered the statements made by the victim's wife in the FIR that was filed immediately following her husband's death in police custody. The Court also noted that a magistrate's investigation into the incident concluded that the Victim was discovered dead in the cell.

The court also considered the statement made by Ranjit Debnath, who was in the same lockup as deceased Jamal Hossain as an accused in another case, during the magisterial investigation.

He reported hearing the victim's loud, agonising screams when he was brought to the police station. He further stated that Jamal continued to cry for an extended period of time. He complained of severe chest discomfort.

When he awoke in the morning, he observed that the Sentry guard was attempting to rouse Jamal, but he did not respond. The police officers then entered the lockup. After some time, he learned that Jamal Hossain had passed away.

Taking into account the facts and circumstances, the court concluded that the deceased's alleged torture in custody cannot be ruled out. The court also noted that the decedent's mother and wife were present when Jamal Hossain was arrested, and that they had made categorical statements implicating police personnel.

"In light of the highly suspicious facts and circumstances of the case, the allegation of custodial violence against the deceased cannot be disregarded. Having said that, we believe it would not be inappropriate to award the petitioners a reasonable amount of monetary compensation for Jamal Hossain's death in police custody "The Court remarked further.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the state respondents to pay Rs 10 lakhs as compensation to the petitioners for Jamal Hossain's death in custody by depositing the sum with the Registry of this Court within four weeks.

 

Rasheda Khatun and others

v/s.

State of Tripura and others

Latest Legal News