NOORUNISSA BEGUM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KHAMMAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Noorunissa Begum aged about 28 years, wife of late Shaik Chand, and Shaik Saida, wife of late Karnal aged about 60 years, the mother of Shaik Chand filed the writ petition to issue writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not conducting enquiry and failing to pay compensation to the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and unconditional and for consequential direction to the respondents to conduct enquiry and pay compensation for death of Shaik Chand husband of the first petitioner and son of second petitioner in judicial custody.

(2.) It is submitted that the first petitioner's husband Shaik Chand was an autodriver and having seven children and aged parents and was maintaining his family solely on the earnings from auto-driving. Shaik Chand was falsely implicated in criminal case No. 2 of 1991. According to the case of the prosecution on 24-12-1990 he quarrelled with some boys with the result one of the boys lost teeth. On this ground he was arrested and kept in judicial custody and later transferred to Sub-Jail, Khammam. On the date of trial of the above criminal case the first petitioner went to the Court to see her husband but he was not produced before the Court. When enquired she was told by one of the prisoners of the Sub Jail, Khammam that her husband suffered with chest pain for three days and therefore she requested the Jail Superintendent to send him to hospital for treatment. He was not sent to the hospital even after repeated requests made by her to the jail authorities and that apart he was not given proper food. He was abused and beaten by the jail authorities when they were requested to take him to hospital. On 2-2-1991 at about 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. her husband died due to ill health due to non availabiity of medical treatment. She has no other source of income to feed her family members and herself and her family members are purely dependent on the income of late Shaik Chand. For simple injury i.e. loss of two teeth the deceased was fasely implicated in the criminal case and kept in jail from 24-12-1990 till the date of his death on 2-12-1991. Even if he is convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 123, IPC the sentence would be imprisonment for an year or fine of Rs. 1,000.00 but he was kept in jail from 29-12-1990. The death of the husband of the first petitioner was also not intimated to her but the body was handed over on 3-12-1991. It is alleged that her husband died due to negligence on the part of the authoriteis of the Sub Jail for not providing medical treatment. Thereafter she made representation to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khammam and on the request of her advocate the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class. recorded the statements of other prisoners who were brought to the Court that her husband died only due to negligence on the part of the authorities. The other prisoners wrote an open letter to Eanadu newspaper that they were going on hunger strike from 3-12-1991 on the ground that they were not treated properly when a co-prisoner died for not providing medical treatment. It is further stated that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an oral enquiry in the Sub Jail on 3-12-1991 and 4-12-1991 and her statements were recorded. The Revenue Divisional Officer conducted a magisterial enquiry. Then the authorities have managed to see that some persons give statements against the first petitioner's complaint made to the Revenue Divisional Officer and pending enquiry the Revenue Divisional Officer was transferred and a new Revenue Divisional Officer has taken up charge. Therefore it is submitted that for committing simple injury the deceased was falsely implicated in criminal case and kept in jail from 24-12-1990 till 2-12-1991 on which date he died due to chest pain and for not providing any medical treatment and as on the date of filing of the writ petition the magisterial enquiry was not completed and therefore the present writ petition was filed to grant the above relief.

(3.) In response to the above allegations made by the petitioners one Sri K. Chrisostham, Superintendent of Sub Jail, Khammam filed his counter-affidavit. It is stated that he is not aware of the relationship between the petitioners and the deceased Shaik Chand and he is also not aware of the occupation and earning of the deceased but admitted that the deceased was arrested by the II Town Police, Khamam for the offence under Section 326, I.P.C. in C.C.2 of 1991 and remanded by the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khamman on 29-12-1990. It is further stated that the deceased never made any complaint about his ill-health till 2-12-1991 at about 10-30 p.m. He denied the allegations that the deceased was suffering with chest pain for three days and requested him to send him to the hospital for medical treatment and also allegation that on enquiry made by the first petitioner the co-prisoners told her about the deceased's ill-health for three days are false. He emphasised that he has taken immediate steps for the welfare of the deceased and his health after information received from his duty warder at about 10.30 p.m. on 2-12-1991. He has given food to the deceased and other prisoners as per rules from the date of remanding him to the sub jail. He denied that the deceased died in the sub jail on 2-12-1991 at 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. due to ill-health and non availabiity of medical facilities but stated that the deceased informed them about his health condition on 2-12-1991 at about 10.30 p.m. Immediately he has written letter to the Superintendent of Armed Reserve Police, Khammam on 2-12-1991 for providing escort to take the deceased to the Khammam hospital for treatment. The Superintendent of Sub Jail is the in-charge of the welfare of the prisoners and any complaint received from the prisoners but no such information was received about the deceased's ill-health till 10.30 p.m. on 2-12-1991. Armed Reserve Police sent the death information to the petitioners immediately on the same day. Therefore, the statement of the petitioners that they received the death intimation on 3-12-1991 is far away from truth. There was no negligence on the part of the jail authoriteis in not providing medical treatment or food etc., to the deceased. He denied the statement of the petitioners that co-prisoners raised their voice against the Superintendent of Sub Jail for irresponsible and negligent behaviour towards prisoners. He denied the allegation that enquiry was made to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khammam on the basis of the complaint given by the mother of the deceased. After receiving complaint on 3-12-1991 the Chief Judicial Magistrate visited the Sub Jail on 4-12-1991 and enquired about the death of the deceased and about non providing medical aid, food etc. There is no adverse report against the Superintendent of Sub Jail and on 4-12-1991 the Dist. Collector also visited the Sub Jail and euquired about the death of the deceased Shaik Chand for non providing medical treatment. He denied the allegation that the body of deceased was taken on 3-12-1991 at 3 a.m. for medical treatment but he was sent to the hospital at 2.50 a.m. after providing Armed reserved escort as A. R. police people did not provide escort immediately after receiving his requisition. On 3-12-1991 post-mortem was conducted in the Government Hospital, Khammam and then the Armed Police handed over the body of the deceased to his relatives. Therefore, there is no negligence on his part and no delay in sending the deceased to the hospital for treatment. He has taken immediate steps for treatment of the deceased. The Revenue Divisional Officer has conducted enquiry in Sub Jail on 3-12-1991 and recorded the statements of the prisoners and also others. There is no finding of negligence on the part of the Superintendent of Sub jail as per the statement of the witnesses. He denied the allegation that he managed the prisoners from speaking truth.