Liability of State in Death from Robbery

" Are the dependents of the killed can claim compensation from the state for the loss of the lives? As per my knowledge, although I am not a lawyer, the right to live is a constitutional right."

The right to life is no doubt a fundamental right guaranteed by Constitution under Article 21, but it is a negative right of the citizens and also a negative obligation of the State.

By negative rights it means you can choose whether to enjoy the rights to the fullest extent or not. It also means state cannot create obstacles before you to prevent you from enjoying your rights to the fullest extent, if you choose to do so.

By negative obligation of state it means state is not obligated to provide you the conditions so that you can enjoy the right to life to the fullest extent. For example you cannot say that since you want to enjoy your life to the fullest extent by flying in a helicopter daily, the state should provide you with one. But if you decide to buy a helicopter with money earned by you, the state cannot stop you.

Article 21 covers many human and fundamental rights which include the Right to Self Defense and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Corrolary to Right to Self Defense we have Sections 96 to 106 IPC. To regulate the fundamental Right to Keep and Bear Arms we have Arms Act 1959. Please read the following link, it has been discussed in detail at: https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/profile.asp?member_id=85234

In your case, the victims became "succesful" victims of crime because they did not take responsibility of their own lives upon themselves by excersising their fundamental rights of Self Defense and RKBA. How can you blame the State for this?

You can make a case against the State for preventing the victims and those accompanying them from excercising the fundamental rights of Self Defense and RKBA which resulted in the death of two of your family members, causing irreparable, unlimited emotional and monetary loss if atleast one the following are present:

1) Any of the victims or any of those accompanying them on journey had arms licenses but were not able to carry them because the area validity of arms license did not cover the place where the crime took place.

2) Any of the victims or any of those accompanying them on journey had applied for arms license before and license application was rejected or unreasonably delayed and the crime occurred before the license was issued.