Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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