Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court

"Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the rule of law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected," Gauhati High Court, in a significant judgment, held that the pendency of a criminal trial against police officials is not a valid ground to deny monetary compensation to the family of a custodial death victim.

A Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Shamima Jahan observed that compensation under public law for the violation of fundamental rights is an independent remedy intended to provide immediate solace and act as a palliative for the state's failure to protect life and liberty.

The petitioner, Smt. Joyanta Maibangsa, approached the Court seeking a writ of mandamus for compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs following the custodial death of her husband, Santosh Hojai. Her husband was forcibly picked up from their residence by police personnel in civil dress on April 24, 2020, on suspicion of involvement with extremist groups. His half-burnt and severely injured body was recovered six days later from a jungle area, leading to a CID investigation that resulted in a charge sheet against eight individuals, including high-ranking police officers.

The primary question before the court was whether compensation under the public law remedy of Article 226 of the Constitution can be awarded during the pendency of a criminal trial. The court was also called upon to determine the appropriate quantum of compensation for custodial torture and death when the state’s instrumentalities are directly implicated in the crime.

Compensation In Public Law Is Independent Of Finality In Criminal Proceedings

The Court categorically rejected the State’s contention that compensation cannot be granted until the criminal cases against the accused officials reach finality. The bench noted that the fact of the victim dying while in the custody of police personnel was established through the investigation and the subsequent charge sheet.

The bench emphasized that it is not necessary to wait for the conclusion of a criminal trial to reach a conclusion regarding the State's liability in public law. It observed that the claim of the petitioner regarding wrongful detention and torture was not effectively challenged by the State through any affidavit.

Custodial Torture A Naked Violation Of Human Dignity

Relying on the landmark Supreme Court decision in DK Basu vs. State of West Bengal, the Court reiterated that custodial violence strikes a blow at the rule of law. The judges observed that torture of a human being by another under the shield of uniform is a matter of deep concern in any free society.

The Court noted that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to live with human dignity. This right cannot be put in abeyance upon the arrest of a citizen, and the State remains the custodian and protector of the fundamental rights of every individual in its custody.

State Liable For Barbaric Acts Of Its Officers

The bench highlighted the "barbaric nature" of the activities committed by the accused persons, which included beating the victim on a bridge, torturing him in a police outpost, and burying his body in a jungle to destroy evidence. The Court found it particularly shocking that the officials had allegedly torn pages from the General Diary and erased registers to conceal the crime.

Such actions, the Court remarked, have the effect of shaking the judicial conscience. It held that when the State’s functionaries become lawbreakers, it breeds contempt for the law and encourages lawlessness, which no civilized nation can permit.

Public Law Remedy Distinct From Private Law Claims In Tort

The Court explained that the award of compensation in a proceeding under Article 226 is a remedy available in public law based on strict liability for the contravention of fundamental rights. This remedy is in addition to the right of the aggrieved party to bring a suit for damages in a civil court under private law.

Citing Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa, the Court clarified that the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply to the contravention of fundamental rights. The award is meant to be a palliative to make the right to life meaningful and provide relief to the family facing financial hardship.

Quantum Of Compensation Guided By Judicial Precedents

Regarding the calculation of the amount, the Court observed that while there is no straightjacket formula, the wisdom of the court must account for the age of the victim, loss of earnings, and the suffering of the dependents. The bench noted the petitioner’s husband was the sole breadwinner with significant financial liabilities, including outstanding loans for multiple commercial vehicles.

While the petitioner had calculated a claim of over Rs. 4.80 crores based on the Sarla Verma formula, the Court noted that the present proceeding was primarily for a palliative award. It observed that the victim’s family included two minor daughters and a son who required means for education and upkeep.

Final Directions and Recovery from Erring Officials

The Court ordered the State of Assam to pay an additional sum of Rs. 20,00,000 (Twenty Lacs) to the petitioner, which is over and above the Rs. 5,00,000 already paid as interim relief. The Court further clarified that the petitioner and her children remain entitled to compensation under the Assam Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012, in addition to the court-awarded amount.

Crucially, the Court granted the State the liberty to recover the total palliative award of Rs. 25,00,000 from the erring officials who are eventually found guilty by the trial court. The petition was allowed with the observation that this award would be adjusted only if a future award under private law remedy by a civil court is higher.

The Gauhati High Court reaffirmed that the State's duty of care toward persons in custody is strict and admits of no exceptions. By awarding substantial compensation despite the pending trial, the Court underscored that constitutional remedies for the violation of the right to life cannot be delayed by the procedural timelines of the criminal justice system.

Date of Decision: 03 June 2026