Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Human Rights Are Universal: Gauhati High Court Orders Compensation in Custodial Death Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Gauhati High Court has ruled in favor of Sona Miah in a significant case concerning the custodial death of his son, Rokibul Hussain. The bench, comprising Justices Manash Ranjan Pathak and Mitali Thakuria, directed the State of Assam to pay Rs. 3 Lakhs as compensation to the next of kin of the deceased. The court emphasized the necessity of a thorough enquiry into the incident and the accountability of police personnel in cases of custodial deaths.

The case revolves around the death of Rokibul Hussain, who was arrested while working as a truck driver transportingimber logs. Hussain was taken into custody on suspicion of illegal activities under the Assam Forest Regulation Act and later died on October 30, 2015, allegedly due to police torture while being transported from the court to the jail. Despite multiple complaints and applications for action, the respondent authorities failed to conduct a proper enquiry or provide compensation, leading to the filing of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Credibility of Post-Mortem Report: The court scrutinized the post-mortem report, which revealed injuries inconsistent with the narrative provided by the police. “The wounds found on the back and head of the deceased raise serious questions about the police’s account of an escape attempt,” noted the bench. This discrepancy led the court to suspect torture by police personnel.

Failure to Initiate Proper Enquiry: The court criticized the respondent authorities for not conducting a proper enquiry into the custodial death. Despite a complaint lodged by the deceased’s uncle and subsequent applications for action, no substantial steps were taken. The court stated, “The inaction on part of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary, and violates fundamental rights.”

Referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons vs. State of Assam (2017), the court underscored the necessity of compensating the next of kin for unnatural deaths in custody. “Human rights are universal and not dependent on the status of the person,” the court remarked, emphasizing that victims of custodial deaths deserve justice and compensation.

Justice Thakuria asserted, “The persons who suffer an unnatural death in a prison are victims, and their next of kin are entitled to compensation.” This statement reinforced the court’s stance on the state’s liability in ensuring justice for custodial deaths.

The Gauhati High Court’s decision marks a significant step towards accountability in custodial death cases. By mandating the payment of Rs. 3 Lakhs as compensation and ordering a proper verification process, the court has sent a strong message about the importance of human rights and the need for thorough investigations in such incidents. This judgment is expected to influence future cases, ensuring that the legal framework supports the victims’ families in their pursuit of justice.

Date of Decision: 21st May 2024

Sona Miah vs. The State of Assam and 3 Ors

Latest Legal News