SMT. GENDIYA KOL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by a widow of a convict who had died while undergoing sentence in the jail, is filed for grant of compensation and to punish the officers of the jail authorities, who were responsible for the death of husband of the petitioner.

(2.) The facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition is that one Bachchu Kol, husband of the petitioner, was convicted for committing offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo 10 years RI. The said convict was undergoing sentence when he fell ill on 10.08.2010 in Central Jail at Satna. Though the report about the illness of the said convict was given to the jail authorities, they have not taken due care for providing sufficient treatment to the said accused, on account of which the said accused died. When the information was received by the petitioner and other family members, the agitation was raised against the jail authorities. The State administration thereafter directed a judicial enquiry, which was conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satna and a report was given in that respect on 30.06.2012. On receipt of the said report under Right to Information Act, the petitioner made a demand for payment of compensation. However, no action in that respect was taken, therefore, the petitioner was required to file the present writ petition. In view of the aforesaid pleadings, the following reliefs are claimed in the present writ petition :

(3.) Upon service of notice of the writ petition, a return is filed by the respondents. It is contended that in the judicial enquiry since the negligence of some of the Jail authorities was found, appropriate enquiry was conducted against the officials of the Jail Department and the Deputy Jailor has been punished with imposition of punishment of censure. The Warder of the Jail, who too was found responsible for negligence in discharge of duties, was also imposed a punishment of censure. Since one of the Warder has been retired during pendency of the enquiry, recommendations have been made for imposition of penalty against him and matter has been referred to the Governor of the State. It is, thus, contended that so far as the relief of enquiry against the delinquent employee is concerned, that has already been taken care of and no such direction is necessary.