Bench: Justice Jagdish Sharan Verma, Justice A.S. Anand, Justice, N. Venkatachala
Facts
In this case, a letter was sent by Smt. Nilabati Behera to the Supreme Court stating that her 22-year-old son, Suman Behera had died in police custody after being inflicted with several injuries.
The honorable court took suo moto action and converted it into a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian constitution. The petitioner claimed compensation for the violation of her son's fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21.
The Orissa police arrested Mr.Suman Behara for investigation involving the offense of theft and he was detained at the police outpost. The very next day, Mr. Behara's dead body was found near the railway track. The marks on his body indicated an unnatural death.
Arguments of the counsel for Petitioner
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the evidence adduced during the inquiry by the learned District Judge did not agree with the arguments of the Additional Solicitor General arguing on behalf of the State (Respondents). Further, they had no reason to reject the findings of the report submitted by District Judge of Orissa which specified that Mr.Suman Behara died due to the multiple injuries inflicted on him during the police custody at Police Outpost.
Arguments of the counsel for Respondent
The counsel for the respondent argued that the very factual foundation for the liability of the State was absent. The respondents argued that Suman Behera managed to escape from police custody at about 3 a.m. on the night between the 1st and 2nd December 1987 from the Police Outpost.
They, further, argued that despite the search he could not be apprehended, and thereafter his dead body was found on the railway track. According to the respondents, the injuries which resulted in his death may have occurred due to the train passing over him. The respondents, thus, denied the allegation of custodial death.
Judgment
The court noted that there was no evidence of any search by the police to find Suman Behara after he escaped from police custody. The police also reached much later to the take charge of the body, after it was reported by railway people, which raised questions as to its credibility.
Further, a doctor before the court deposed that the injury was caused by a blunt object, which may have been lathi blows. All the injuries found on his body could not have been caused by a train accident.
The court also distinguished the liabilities of the State in public law as opposed to private law. It mentioned that a proceeding under Article 32 before the Supreme Court or any High Court is a remedy available in public law and the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply in case of public law.
It awarded a compensation of Rs.1,50,000 to the petitioner and a sum of Rs.10,000 to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. The Supreme Court also ordered the State of Orissa to initiate criminal proceedings against those who killed Mr. Suman Behara.
Analysis of the judgment
Before the judgment, there was no structured formulation to grant compensation in case of custodial deaths. There were numerous cases where no or very little compensation was granted in such cases. The decision in Nilabati Behara v. the State of Orissa, made sure that the state could no longer escape liability in Public law and had to be compelled to pay compensation when it committed such gross violation of one's fundamental rights as well as the very basic human rights.
