Srinagar: The High Court on Friday directed the Union Territory authorities to pay compensation of Rs five lakhs to the widow of an undertrial killed in custody in Central Jail Srinagar.
Pronouncing judgment on the custodial death of the husband of writ petitioner Mst Jana, the bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar directed the respondents to “pay a compensation of Rs 5.00 lakhs to the widowed lady within three months.”
In case the amount of compensation is not paid to the petitioner within time, it shall carry interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of the judgment. The amount of compensation shall be paid to the petitioners in equal shares, directed Justice Dhar.
The petitioner had sought compensation from the respondent UT authorities on account of custodial death of Mohammad Ismail Shah.
The deceased Shah was lodged in Central Jail, Srinagar, as an under-trial for offences under Section 302 (murder), 109 (abetment to crime) of RPC of Police Station Kulgam and in case of FIR of 2009 of Police Station Qazigund.
While undergoing custody in the jail, the deceased was attacked by a co-prisoner, Ghulam Hassan Malik, in 2013, as a result of which the deceased received fatal injuries and he died in the jail.
It has been contended by the petitioner lady through her counsel that the deceased while in Central Jail was under custody and protection of State and its functionaries, and as such they were under a legal obligation to protect his life.
It has been submitted that the State and its functionaries have failed to discharge their legal duty which resulted in murder of the deceased within the jail premises itself.
According to the petitioners, they have been deprived of the company and affection of their kin due to his untimely death and, as such, they are entitled to recover compensation from the respondents.
The court said “it has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner, who is widow of the deceased detenu, is entitled to compensation for wrongful loss of her husband. The State being the employer of the employees on account of whose negligence the death of the deceased took place, is liable to pay such compensation to the petitioner.”
It further said “even though the deceased was an under-trial in a murder case, the respondents were not absolved of their liability to ensure his safety and security in the jail.”
The court also said “a prisoner cannot be deprived of his constitutional rights except in accordance with law. Therefore, the deceased in the instant case despite being an under-trial prisoner in a murder case was entitled to protection by the jail authorities. Since his killing took place while he was in jail, he was deprived of his life in contravention of the law.”
It observed the under-trial’s “untimely death has deprived the petitioners, who happen to be the widow, sons and daughters of the deceased, of his love and affection as also his company, as such, they are entitled to compensation from the respondents whose negligence has resulted in his untimely death.”
