REKHA Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a suitable writ, order or direction primarily claiming reasonable amount of compensation in regard to the custodial death of Sushil Kumar. The petitioner had earlier approached the Supreme Court with a similar prayer, but the Supreme Court dismissed the petition with liberty to the petitioner to move this court.

(2.) In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, the factum of above-named person having died on account of injuries caused to him at the hands of the police officials namely S.I. Rajbir Singh, H.C.Kesar Singh, Constables Jai Prakash, Robin and Rohtas is not disputed and it is stated that those police officials are facing trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge for the offences committed by them.

(3.) Having regard to the Supreme Court decisions starting from the case of Neelbati Behra, there is no denial of the legal position that the state under public law is vicariously liable to compensate the legal heirs of the deceased who has met the custodial death at the hands of official of the State. The petitioners are within their rights to seek compensation in the present case. Therefore, the only question left is in regard to the quantum of such compensation, which can be awarded to the petitioners and to which of the petitioners, having regard to all relevant factors i.e. the age of the deceased, the occupation he practised at the time of his death and the income which he was generating from the said occupation. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was running a STD booth and along with the said booth he was also dealing in certain other activities like sale of mobile cash cards and of petty goods etc. and was generating an income of around Rs.10,000/- p.m., which aspect remains unrebutted on record.