Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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