138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High 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