SUJATA MUKUNDA MANERAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has invoked writ jurisdiction of this court on account of death of her son, Rajesh in the Central prison, Nagpur. Initially, an affidavit of superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur alone was filed. The affidavits of Medical officer who attended on the deceased were not filed. Therefore, this court had directed that affidavits of the Medical Officer be filed and in addition the Secretary, Home department was also directed to file an affidavit. The main object behind directing the Secretary, Home Department to file the affidavit was that he should look into the matter personally and after ascertaining the correct position, file an affidavit before the court.

(2.) WE have heard Ms. Tajwar Khan, the learned advocate for the petitioner and mrs. Jog, the learned A. P. P. for the State. The learned advocate for the petitioner has argued that the deceased died on account of negligence and lack of medical treatment on the part of the jail authorities and that even an attempt was made to fabricate the record to show that the deceased had died while taking treatment in the hospital. Relying upon Article 21 of the Constitution and judgments of the Supreme Court in Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, 1989 ACJ 1000 (SC); P. B. Khet Mazdoor samity v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1996 sc 2426 and Muktaram Sitaram Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, 1997 Cri LJ 3458; it has been urged that adequate compensation be awarded to the petitioner on account of death of son of the petitioner in the Central prison, Nagpur for want of proper, adequate and immediate treatment which was required and which was denied to him on account of the lapses committed by the jail authorities.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned A. P. P. urged before us that the deceased had five criminal cases pending against him; that he was suffering from cirrhosis and that the medical record shows that proper and adequate treatment was given and all necessary and required precautions were taken by the jail authorities and that no case of negligence or want of medical treatment has been established. She also contended that, in order to establish negligence in relation to death of son of the petitioner, an inquiry will have to be ordered and without ordering any inquiry no responsibility can be fixed on the jail authorities in the matter.