DUKHURAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner, for grant of compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-, on account of death of his son while in the custody of respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

(2.) Deceased-Khikhram was the son of the petitioner. On an allegation of theft, the deceased-Khikhram was arrested by the police. In order to recover articles alleged to be hided in a secret place by the deceased-Khikhram, he was brought to Kumhiya pond of Village Raipura, Police Station, Baradwar by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 along with one home guard. During investigation, the police officials enquired from the deceased-son of the petitioner as to where he concealed brass vessel. It is the case of the petitioner that when his son disclosed that the vessel was kept inside the pond, his son was compelled to dive into the pond and take out the vessel. At that time, the deceased-Khikhram was handcuffed and chained. On being so insisted, Khikhram entered into the pond but never come out. The police officials tried to find out deceased-Khikhram in the pond but thereafter, they went away stating the villagers who had gathered there, to inform the police regarding whereabouts of deceased-Khikhram. Thereafter, on 21-10-97, the dead body of deceased-Khikhram was seen floating in the pond. Merg intimation was recorded and a Panchnama (Annexure P-2) was also prepared. The dead body of the deceased-Khikhram was sent for post-mortem and in the post-mortem report, it was stated that the cause of death is Asphyxia and it can be due to submersion of the body into the water for a long time. The matter was investigated and a charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti for alleged commission of offence under Section 304-A/34, IPC against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the son of the petitioner died due to gross negligence of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 - police officials while in their custody. He submits that the manner in which his son was dealt with by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, resulted in untimely death of his son. It is also submitted that it were respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who compelled the son of the petitioner, though alleged with allegations of theft, to sink into water, whereas his son was handcuffed and chained. Because of this high handed action of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the son of the petitioner, lost his life for which, the petitioner is entitled to be compensated because his son lost his life and died in the custody of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, on account of their sheer negligence, callous and irresponsible act.