When Police Search Both The Bag And The Body, Section 50 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed: Supreme Court Settles The Boundaries Of A Critical Safeguard Police Cannot Offer A Third Option During NDPS Search: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal In 11 Kg Charas Case, Holds Section 50 Violation Vitiates Entire Trial Supreme Court Holds Employer Group Insurance Has No Connection With Accidental Death, Cannot Be Set Off Against Motor Accident Compensation Graduating Shouldn't Be A Punishment: Supreme Court Restores Rights Of Anganwadi Workers Denied Supervisor Posts For Being Over-Qualified Trustee Who Diverts Sale Proceeds of Charitable Trust Is an 'Agent' Under Section 409 IPC, Not Exempt From Criminal Breach of Trust: Bombay High Court AFGIS Is 'State' Under Article 12: Supreme Court Reverses Delhi High Court, Restores Writ Petitions of Air Force Insurance Society Employees Delhi High Court Issues Landmark Directions Against Repeated Summoning of Child Victims, Insistence on Presence During Bail Hearings In POCSO 'Accidental Injury' in Hospital Records, All Eye-Witnesses Hostile: Gujarat High Court Acquits Men Convicted for Culpable Homicide After 35 Years Medical Condition Alone Cannot Dilute the Statutory Embargo Under Section 37 NDPS Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Pre-emption Cannot Wait for Registration When Possession Has Already Changed Hands: Punjab & Haryana High Court Strikes Down Time-Barred Claim Listing a Case for Evidence Is Not Commencement of Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Allows Amendment of Plaint in Insurance Dispute Forgery Accused Cannot Be Declared 'Proclaimed Offender': Punjab and Haryana High Court Draws Critical Distinction Between 'Proclaimed Person' and 'Proclaimed Offender' A Two-Line Ex Parte Judgment Is No Judgment In The Eye Of Law: Madras High Court Declares Decree Inexecutable What Was Not Claimed Then Cannot Be Claimed Now: Calcutta High Court Applies Constructive Res Judicata to Bar Second Partition Suit Unregistered Family Settlement Creates No Rights in Immovable Property: Delhi High Court Rejects Brother's Ownership Claim Police Must Protect Lawful Possession When Civil Court Decree Is Defied: Kerala High Court Upholds Purchase Certificate Holder’s Rights Over Alleged Temple Claim One Mark Short, No Right to Appointment: Patna High Court Dismisses Engineer's Claim to Vacancies Left by Non-Joining Candidates Bombay High Court Binds MCA to Arbitration as "Veritable Party" in T20 League Dispute Silence in the Witness Box Can Sink Your Case: ‘Non-Examination Leads to Presumption Against Party’ — Andhra Pradesh High Court Sale Deed Holder With Registered Title Prevails Over Claimant Under Mere Agreement To Sell: Karnataka High Court Candidate With 'Third Child' Disqualification Cannot Escape Consequence By Avoiding Cross-Examination: Supreme 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