RANUBALA SUTRADHAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF -appellant instituted Money Suit No. 6 of 1978 claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ - against the respondent for the unnatural death of her eldest son, Swapan Sutradhar, in the police custody due to negligence of the State machinery, namely, police officials of the Kotwali Police Station. The admitted facts are that deceased Swapan Sutradhar was arrested in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 31 (4) of 1976 under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, 1860, in the night of 25.4.1976. On the following morning, he was taken out of the lock -up for interrogation at 7.30 a.m. and after completion of interrogation he was sent back in the lockup at 7.45 a.m. and that at about 8 a.m. he was found dead in the lock -up and according to the police he committed suicide between 7.45 a.m. and 8 a.m.

(2.) THE defendant resisted the claim by filing written statement. On the pleadings of the parties following issues are framed by the learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala:

(3.) IN support of this contention learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Challa Ramkonda Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, by District Collector, Kurnool . In the said case an undertrial prisoner was killed in a bomb blast hurled by the miscreants by entering into the sub -jail with the help of ladder at night and there was failure or negligence on the part of police to guard jail property and to ensure safety of prisoners. On the question of maintainability of the suit for damages against the State for the death of an under -trial prisoner, instituted by the heirs of the deceased, the Andhra Pradesh High Court placing reliance in the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (1) Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (2) Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1026 and (3) Bhim Singh v. State of J&K : 1986 ACJ 867 held that Article 21 does not recognise any exception and no such exception can be read into it by reference to Clause (1) of Article 300 of the Constitution where a citizen has been deprived of his life, or liberty, otherwise than in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. It is no answer to say that the said deprivation was brought about while the officials of the State were acting in discharge of the sovereign functions of the State.