D. RANGANAYAGI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR . Justice A.S. Anand as he then was, in his lecture on Victims of Crime - The Unseen Side'' which is reported in Journal Section of, (1998) 1 SCC 3 has observed as follows:

(2.) IN the instant case, admittedly, one Durairaj the husband of the first petitioner and the father of petitioners 2 to 5 died on 11 -6 -1981 when he was under police custody at Budalur Police Station at Tanjore. Even though the death of Durairaj was explained as suicide the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tanjore, in his report dated 23.1.1981 submitted to the second respondent the District Collector concluded that the said Durairaj should have been done to death and all the five police personnel who were on duty at that time were responsible for the offence. Pursuant to the above report dated 23.1.1981, the Government passed G.O. Ms. No. 1215 dated 29.7.1982 directed the Collector to launch a prosecution. Accordingly, a case has been registered against the police personnel in Sessions Case No. 42 of 1983 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, West Thanjavur Division; the accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 342, 352 and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but on appeal by the State in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 1985 before this Court, the police Personnel were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code by an order dated 11.5.1991. Therefore, the fact remains that the said Durairaj died when he was in police custody.

(3.) MR . P. Rathinam, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the decisions of this Court in (i) Baggium Doraiswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Public Dept (Law & Order),Madras -9 reported in, 1994 2 L.W. (Cri) 687, (ii) Madras High Court Advocates Association rep, by its Secretary v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Govt, Home Department, Madras and three others (1995 2 L.W.(Cri.) 112): and (iii) M. Boopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Home Department, Madras and others (by order dated 5.11.1998 made in Crl. O.P. No. 17974 of 1997) and claims that the petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs. 5.00,000/ - by way of compensation for the custodial death of Dorairaj in as much as there is no dispute that the said Dorairaj died when he was in the custody of police and that he was the sole bread winner of his family at the time of his death.