1995 JTR(SC) 513
1995 ACJ 859 ; 1995 2 AICLR 207 ; 1995 AIR(SCW) 2236 ; 1997 35 AllCriC 604 ; 1995 3 CCR(SC) 1 ; 1995 CriLR 529 ; 1995 2 Crimes(SC) 304 ; 1995 CrLJ 2920 ; 1995 3 RCR(Cri) 411 ; 1995 2 Scale 729 ; 1995 3 SCC 600 ; 1995 SCC(Cri) 556 ; 1995 2 SCJ 540 ; 1995 3 SCR 207 ; 1995 2 UJ 291
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE R.M. SAHAI AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.
KEWALPATI(SMT)
Versus
STATE OF U.P, AND OTHERS.
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1119 of 1991,
Decided 6-4-1995
Advocates appeared:
K.V. Vishwanathan, Advocate, for the Petitioner;
A.S. Pundir, Advocate, for the Respondents.
`
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.32, Art.21
(A) The provisions of Article 32 of the Constitution of India confer the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Although the deceased was a convict undergoing sentence, the constitutional guarantee against arbitrary deprivation of life extends to prisoners, and the State owes a duty to protect his life and safety while in custody. The absence of a specific provision in the U.P. Jail Manual for compensation does not absolve the authorities of this constitutional obligation.
(B) A convict does not cease to have fundamental rights, including the right to life and protection from arbitrary harm, merely because he is incarcerated. The State is under a duty to take reasonable measures to ensure the safety and protection of prisoners. Failure to provide such protection resulting in death attracts compensation on humanitarian grounds.
Facts of the case:
A convict serving sentence for murder was killed by a co-accident in Central Jail, Varanasi. The convict, who maintained discipline among inmates, was attacked due to his strict conduct. The authorities admitted the homicide. The widow and children of the deceased sought compensation under law and on compassionate grounds.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the convict was entitled to protection and the State was responsible for the breach of that duty. The death occurred in violation of law and deprived the family of his support. Compensation was warranted on both legal and compassionate considerations.
Issues:
Whether a convict who loses life due to State failure to provide protection is entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi:
The State owes a constitutional duty to protect the life of every prisoner, and a breach resulting in death attracts compensatory liability in the absence of statutory provisions denying such relief.
Result:
The petition allowed and the State directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 within three months, part in fixed deposit for the children and the balance to the widow, subject to verification and future division upon maturity.
(A) The provisions of Article 32 of the Constitution of India confer the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Although the deceased was a convict undergoing sentence, the constitutional guarantee against arbitrary deprivation of life extends to prisoners, and the State owes a duty to protect his life and safety while in custody. The absence of a specific provision in the U.P. Jail Manual for compensation does not absolve the authorities of this constitutional obligation.
(B) A convict does not cease to have fundamental rights, including the right to life and protection from arbitrary harm, merely because he is incarcerated. The State is under a duty to take reasonable measures to ensure the safety and protection of prisoners. Failure to provide such protection resulting in death attracts compensation on humanitarian grounds.
Facts of the case:
A convict serving sentence for murder was killed by a co-accident in Central Jail, Varanasi. The convict, who maintained discipline among inmates, was attacked due to his strict conduct. The authorities admitted the homicide. The widow and children of the deceased sought compensation under law and on compassionate grounds.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the convict was entitled to protection and the State was responsible for the breach of that duty. The death occurred in violation of law and deprived the family of his support. Compensation was warranted on both legal and compassionate considerations.
Issues:
Whether a convict who loses life due to State failure to provide protection is entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi:
The State owes a constitutional duty to protect the life of every prisoner, and a breach resulting in death attracts compensatory liability in the absence of statutory provisions denying such relief.
Result:
The petition allowed and the State directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 within three months, part in fixed deposit for the children and the balance to the widow, subject to verification and future division upon maturity.
A.S.PUNDIR, K.V.VISHWANATHAN
ORDER
1. This petition was entertained on a letter sent by the wife of the deceased Ramjit Upadhayaya who was killed by a co-accused while serving out his sentence under Section 302 IPC in Central Jail, Varanasi. The petitioner and her children have claimed compensation both in law and on compassionate grounds. Reports were obtained from the Inspector General of Prisons, U.P. and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Varanasi. They confirm that Ramjit Upadhayaya was killed by a co-accused. A counter-affidavit was also filed by Deputy Jailor, Central Jail, Varanasi, admitting that Ramjit Upadhayaya was killed by co-accused, Happu, against whom case under Section 303 has been registered. Affidavit was filed on behalf of the Government as well stating that there was no provision in the U.P. Jail Manual for grant of compensation to the family of the deceased convict.
2. Ramjit Upadhayaya was a convict and was working as a Nambardar in the jail. He was strict in maintaining discipline amongst the co-accused. It was due to this strictness in his behaviour as Nambardar that he was attacked and killed by Happu - a co-accused. Even though Ramjit Upadhayaya was Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v.NIYAMAVEDla convict and was serving his sentence yet the authorities were not absolved of their responsibility to ensure his life and safety in the jail. A prisoner does not cease to have his constitutional right except to the extent he has been deprived of it in accordance with law (See Francis Coralie Mullin \. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi1 and A.K. Roy v. Union of India2). Therefore, he was entitled to protection. Since the killing took place when he was in jail, it resulted in deprivation of his life contrary to law. He is survived by his wife and three children. His untimely death has deprived the petitioner and her children of his company and affection. Since it has taken place while he was serving his sentence due to failure of the authorities to protect him, we are of opinion that they are entitled to be compensated.
3. In the result this petition is allowed by directing that the State of U.P. shall deposit a sum of Rs 1,00,000 within three months from today, with the Registrar of this Court. A sum of Rs 50,000 out of this amount shall be deposited in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank and the interest of it shall be paid to the wife and the children. The remaining amount shall be paid to the wife by the Registrar after being satisfied about the identification of the petitioner. The amount in deposit shall be paid to the wife on her option after all the children become major. In case of petitioners death prior to the children becoming major, the amount shall be divided equally between the surviving children.
For Citation: (1995) 3 SCC 600