Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate

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