KALIRAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought relief to pay compensation of Rs. 10 lacs from State of M.R and its functionaries on account of the custodial death of petitioner's son namely Chuttan Singh Kahar @ Uma Shankar.

(2.) THE facts shorn of unnecessary details lie in narrow compass. Suffice it to say that petitioner's son Chuttan Singh along with another accused Shailendra was facing a criminal trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 and in the alternative under Section 302/34 and also under Section 506 later part of IPC in the Court of Additional sessions Judge, Sohagpur in Sessions Trial No.45/69. Admittedly, the petitioner's son was on bail and was appearing in the trial by availing the bail facility. THE judgment was to be pronounced by the Trial Court on 17.7.2000 and indeed it was so pronounced on that date by the said Court. THE Trial Court found both the accused persons guilty and eventually convicted them to undergo sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- each.

(3.) ON the other hand, Smt Sheetal Dubey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that on bare perusal of the order- sheet dated 17.7.2000, it is clear that before sending accused (petitioner's son) to jail, he died by consuming the poisonous pills and, therefore, in these facts and circumstances it cannot be said that the deceased had died a custodial death and therefore, the State of M.P. and its functionaries cannot be slammed to pay compensation since it was not a custodial death.