High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

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

Similar News