Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

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