MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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