Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

High Court of Jharkhand Orders CBI Probe and Compensation in Custodial Death Case

04 September 2024 10:03 AM

By: Admin


“Custodial death is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality.”

On 03 July 2023, In a significant development, the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi has delivered a judgment ordering a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation and the payment of compensation in a custodial death case. The court, in its order dated March 14, 2023, took note of the petition filed by Babita Devi, Navneet Singh, Jyoti Kumari, and Punit Singh, seeking justice for the death of Umesh Singh, who was allegedly killed in police custody in Jharia.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, presiding over the case, observed, “It is crystal clear that there is a violation of life and liberty of the deceased Umesh Singh.” Citing the inquiry report conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which confirmed the custodial death and pointed to police brutality, the court emphasized the need for intervention in cases of human rights violations.

The court directed the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, to initiate departmental proceedings against the erring police officials involved in the incident. Additionally, the state was ordered to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioners within six weeks, as mandated by the court.

High Court  stated, “Award of compensation in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a remedy available under public law based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights, to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply.”

The court also made it clear that the State can recover the compensation amount from the guilty police officials, if they are found to be at fault. This judgment serves as an important precedent in cases involving custodial deaths and reinforces the court’s commitment to protecting human rights and ensuring justice.

The decision has been welcomed by legal experts and activists, who see it as a step towards addressing police brutality and ensuring accountability in cases of custodial deaths. They believe that such judgments will act as a deterrent and serve as a reminder that custodial deaths will not be tolerated, and perpetrators will be held accountable.

Date of Decision: March 14, 2023

Babita Devi VS  State of Jharkhand

Latest Legal News