TUNILATA MALLICK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the widow of Late Hrusikesh Mallick (for short, 'deceased-husband') praying for a direction to the opposite parties to award compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the bereaved family and conduct an independent inquiry with regard to unnatural death of her husband.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner in a nutshell is that her deceased-husband was a peace loving and law abiding citizen of the country. On 29.09.2006 at 10.30 A.M., opposite party No. 4-Excise Inspector, Jajpur conducted raid in the house of the Petitioner and searched all the corners of the house without any search warrant from any of the competent authorities and found 1.50 gm liquor bottle in presence of the villagers. At that time, while the deceased-husband of the Petitioner was returning from river after taking bath, opposite party No. 4 arrested him without showing any reason and took him to the custody without giving any seizure list. At the time of taking her husband to the custody, he was neither suffering from any disease nor previously affected by any disease. On inquiry from Jajpur Police Station, she came to know that her husband had been arrested in connection with P.S. Case No. 540 of 2006. Her husband was illegally detained from 29.09.2006 to 01.10.2006 and on 01.10.2006 he was surrendered before the nearest Magistrate and the learned Court below remanded him to jail custody on the very same day. During that period the deceased was not allowed to meet his family members and No. medicine was provided to the deceased by the Jail Authority. When the deceased became senseless on 03.10.2006, the Jail Authority admitted him in D.H.H. Jajpur without informing the widow-Petitioner or any other members of the family. Lastly on 03.10.2006, husband of the Petitioner died. After death of the deceased, the concerned opposite parties did not furnish any information to the bereaved family. Though the Petitioner submitted a report before the I.I.C., Dharmasala on 05.10.2006, the same was not registered by the police. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. B.N. Panda, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the husband of the Petitioner died at the age of 32 years, due to custodial torture, which violates Article 21 of the Constitution. After arrest of the deceased, the opposite parties have not followed the general principle and guidelines of the Apex Court. No. medical check up was conducted when he was put in jail. The Petitioner has two minor children and also old ailing parents-in-law. The deceased was the only earning member of the family and the whole family was depending on his income. After death of husband of the Petitioner, the Petitioner is in a helpless condition having two small children and old parents of more than 70 years. The rule of law requires that the wrongs should not remain unredressed. Persons committing wrong should be liable to pay or to undergo criminal punishment. Had proper care been taken by the opposite parties, the deceased would not have died. Therefore, prayer has been made for adequate compensation.