"Police Liable For His Death On Account Of Their Negligence": Orissa High Court Directs State To Pay 5 Lakh As Compensation To Parents Of Deceased

The Bench of Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice Biswajit Mohanty concluded,

"Even if it is not established that the ante mortem injuries found on his person during post-mortem were caused by the Police, the law of strict liability for the negligence of the police in not meeting the basic minimum standard of care in providing him prompt medical attention would stand attracted."

The Plea before the Court

The petitioners submitted before the Court that their son Manoj was returning home at about 2 am on 6^th June, 2005 after watching a 'melody concert', when the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC) of the Town PS, accompanied by some other policemen, forcibly took him to the Police Station.

The next morning at 10.30 am, the Police informed the Petitioners that Manoj (their son) had been taken to Sadar Hospital, Dhenkanal.

After the Petitioners reached the Sadar Hospital, on the advice of the doctors there, Manoj was taken to the SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack by a medical ambulance.

Unfortunately, he died on the way. The case of the Petitioners was that he died due to alleged brutal torture by the Dhenkanal Police.

The version of Police

The version of the Police was that the deceased (Manoj) had entered into a foreign liquor shop in a drunken state by making a hole in the asbestos roof and that he fell down from the roof to the floor and thereafter started making unusual sounds.

This attracted the police patrolling party. The shop was thereafter opened and Manoj was brought to the Police Station in the early hours of 7^th June, 2005 and kept in the verandah for verification.

At about 8.50 am when Manoj complained of pain in his abdomen and started vomiting, he was shifted to Dhenkanal Headquarters Hospital for treatment.

Court's observations

Taking into account the version submitted by the Police and the final closure report submitted and accepted by the SDJM, Dhenkanal on 25^th November, 2012 (wherein it was submitted that there was nothing to prove that the death was a 'custodial death' caused by the police), the Court said,

"However, this does not absolve the police of their responsibilities of ensuring timely medical help to a person, who had obviously been arrested and brought in a condition of pain into the Town PS…When on their own showing the police on breaking open the foreign liquor shop found the deceased on the floor writhing in pain, there was no justification in keeping him in the PS in their custody without any medical attention from 3.20 am to 9 am. This was nothing but negligence, plainly inexcusable."

Importantly, the Court said,

"The law in regard to the liability of state functionaries for acts of negligence has been well settled in a series of decisions, many of which deal with deaths of persons while in judicial custody. These would apply with equal force to a situation of proven case of death while in police custody as a result of negligence of the police."

The Court further made it clear that once a person is in the custody of the police, the security of that person's life and liberty is in their hands. They are answerable for whatever happens to the person in their custody.

Further, the Court cited many cases (including the Case of 'In re Death of Sawinder Singh Grover [1995 Supp (4) SCC, 450') wherein the Apex Court extended the liability of state functionaries for acts of omission or commission constituting constitutional tort to deaths or violence that occurred, not necessarily at the hands of the officials, but while in their custody.

The Court also cited Apex Court's ruling in the case of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy (2000) 5 SCC 712, wherein the liability of the state to compensate for the death of a prison inmate in unnatural circumstances was reiterated.

It may be noted that in the case of Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons reported in (2017) 10 SCC 658, the Apex Court had specifically stated,

"But it is important for the Central Government and the State Governments to realize that persons who suffer an unnatural death in a prison are also victims - sometimes of a crime and sometimes of negligence and apathy or both."

Lastly, the Court observed that it is evident from the report of investigation of the police themselves that Manoj remained in police custody from 3.20 am till his death more than seven hours later on 7th June 2005.

To this, the Court said,

"The law of strict liability for the negligence of the police in not meeting the basic minimum standard of care in providing him prompt medical attention would stand attracted."

Thus, the Court directed that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) be paid by the State of Odisha to the Petitioners as compensation for the death of their son while in police custody.

Case title - Purna Chandra Mohapatra and Another v. State of Odisha & Others [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13774 OF 2005]

Click Here To Download Order/Judgment

Read Order/Judgment