Custodial Death – Right to Compensation Flows from Article 21, Irrespective of Conviction or Acquittal: Delhi High Court

“Prisoners Don’t Shed Their Fundamental Rights at Jail Gates — State Has a Duty to Protect, Failing Which Compensation Follows”, In a significant ruling Delhi High Court addressed the legal framework surrounding victim compensation in cases of custodial death. The Court made it clear that “the right to compensation under Section 357A CrPC (now Section 396 BNSS) is a constitutional right flowing from Article 21, independent of the outcome of the criminal trial.”

Dismissing the plea for a fresh judicial inquiry but allowing the claim for victim compensation, the Court ruled that the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme (DVCS) 2018 must be interpreted liberally and beneficially, holding that siblings and grandchildren of the deceased are entitled as “dependents.”

The writ petition was originally filed by Ms. Shakila, mother of the deceased Javed @ Bhura, who died in Tihar Jail on May 3, 2013, following a gang fight among inmates. The deceased was serving a 7-year sentence for robbery under FIR No. 12/2007, PS New Usmanpur, Delhi, and was set for release just two days later, on May 5, 2013.

After his death, FIRs No. 194/2013 and 195/2013 were registered under various IPC provisions related to rioting and culpable homicide. An inquest by the Metropolitan Magistrate concluded that the death was “due to shock from multiple contusions over vital organs resulting from blunt force trauma, compatible with homicide.”

Despite this, the criminal trial led to the acquittal of all accused.

During the petition's pendency, Ms. Shakila passed away in 2016, after which her legal heirs — four siblings of the deceased and six grandchildren — were substituted as petitioners.

The core dispute arose when the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) denied compensation, arguing that “siblings and grandchildren do not qualify as dependents under Clause 2(b) of the DVCS.”

Whether the Definition of ‘Dependent’ Is Exhaustive or Inclusive?

The Respondents argued that “dependent” only includes persons explicitly listed in Clause 2(b) of the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018 — namely, wife, husband, parents, grandparents, unmarried daughters, and minor children.

Rejecting this, the Court held:

“The use of the word ‘includes’ in Clause 2(b) makes it an inclusive definition, not an exhaustive one. It is intended to enlarge the scope, not restrict it.”

The Court reinforced this with the Supreme Court’s principle from S.K. Gupta v. K.P. Jain:

“An inclusive definition enlarges the natural meaning of the word beyond its ordinary scope to include items not explicitly mentioned.”

Are Married Sisters and Grandchildren Eligible as Dependents?

The Court was categorical:

“Marital status is irrelevant to the determination of dependency. Whether a daughter is married or not does not affect her entitlement under the scheme if she was financially or emotionally dependent on the deceased.”

It further added,

“Siblings, married or unmarried, and their children, are not automatically excluded merely by not being named specifically. What matters is the factual existence of dependency.”

Is the Right to Compensation Conditional on Conviction?

Relying on landmark judgments like Suresh v. State of Haryana (2015) 2 SCC 227 and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746, the Court reiterated:

“Compensation under Section 357A CrPC (now Section 396 BNSS) is a public law remedy flowing directly from Article 21. It is independent of whether the accused is convicted, acquitted, or even unidentified.”

Citing the Supreme Court in Challa Ramakrishna Reddy, the Court stressed:

“A prisoner, whether convict or undertrial, retains all his fundamental rights, including the right to life under Article 21. The State cannot abdicate its responsibility merely because the deceased had criminal antecedents.”

On the Prayer for Judicial Inquiry – Declined Due to Passage of Time

The Court noted that an inquest had already been conducted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, FIRs were registered, and the trial had concluded. It observed:

“Twelve years having passed since the incident, with prior inquiry completed, no useful purpose would be served by ordering a further judicial inquiry at this stage.”

State’s Duty in Custodial Death — “Prisoners Are Not Stripped of Fundamental Rights”

Quoting extensively from Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration, the Court observed:

“A prisoner does not shed his fundamental rights at the prison gate. The right to life includes protection from violence at the hands of fellow inmates as much as from State agents.”

It rebuked the State's defense that the custodial death arose merely from an unforeseen gang fight:

“Allowing rival gangs to operate unchecked within prison walls, and the resulting death, reflects a failure of the State’s constitutional duty under Article 21.”

Previous Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 by NHRC – Not a Bar to Further Compensation

The Court clarified that: “The Rs. 1,00,000 paid to the mother of the deceased was interim relief recommended by the NHRC. It does not preclude further compensation under the DVCS, which prescribes a minimum of Rs. 3 lakhs for loss of life.”

Citing its own precedent in Mohini v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), the Court said:

“Clause 4 of the Scheme cannot be read to defeat the objective of providing just and fair compensation to the victims.”

The Delhi High Court directed as follows:

1. An immediate sum of Rs. 2,00,000 to be paid to the petitioners, being the difference between the minimum prescribed under the scheme (Rs. 3,00,000) and the already paid Rs. 1,00,000.

2. The DSLSA is directed to conduct a fact-finding inquiry into the extent of financial or emotional dependency of the petitioners on the deceased and determine further compensation, up to the maximum prescribed (Rs. 10,00,000) under the DVCS.

3. The Court affirmed that:

“The right to claim compensation under the scheme does not vanish with the death of the mother; it survives to the legal heirs, whether siblings or grandchildren, subject to proof of dependency.”

4. The matter is posted for a compliance report after 12 weeks.

This judgment is a landmark in expanding the understanding of victim compensation under custodial death jurisprudence. The Delhi High Court has decisively affirmed that Article 21 casts a continuing obligation on the State to safeguard prisoners’ rights and to compensate when that duty is breached.

The Court underscored: “Compensation for custodial death is not charity, it is a constitutional right.”

Date of Decision: 12th June 2025