SURIYA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner, Smti. SuriyaBegum, is the widow of deceased Nazmul Rasid, who died on 1.8.1995 as aresult of abullet injury sustained by him on the said date in the office chamber of the Officer-in-Charge of Gohpur Police Station. The petitioner lodged aF.I.R. on the next day, i.e. 2.8.1995 in respect of the incident and on the basis thereof Gohpur PS Case No. 92/95 was registered under Section 302 IPC. After investigation of the aforesaid case, police submitted a final re- port on 02.01.1997 taking the view that the death in question was accidental. The final report was accepted by the Court under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved, the writ petitioner instituted the present proceeding before this Court and by an order dated 08.01.2004, this Court had directed a re-investigation of the case to be made at the instance of the Inspector General of Police (CID). The matter was investigated and the I.G.P. (CID) had filed an interim report before this Court on 1.3.2004 to the effect that the death of the petitioner's husband was on account of a negligent act on the part of the Respondent No. 4. who was then working as the Officer-in-Charge of the Gohpur Police Station. It must also be noticed herein that the incident in question occurred while the Respondent No. 4 and the deceased were involved in the examination of certain defects in a seized fire arm, to understand which, the service revolver of the Respondent No.4 was also examined, in the course of which the service revolver went off leading to the death in question. In the interim report of the IGP (CID) dated 1.3.2004, it was further mentioned that sanction for prosecution of the Respondent No. 4 has been sought and as soon as the same is received, will be filed against the said respondent. Thereafter, a final report of the I.G.P. (CID) along with a report signed by the Investigat- ing Officer on 27.2.2004 was placed before the Court, wherein, it has been, inter alia, recorded that there were certain defects in the earlier investigation of the case and that on re-investigation of the same, prima facie, commission of an offence under Section 304 IPC by the Respondent No. 4 herein, is disclosed. It is the common case of the parties before this Court, at the hearing, that sanction for prosecution has in the meantime been ranted and pursuant thereto charge-sheet against the Respondent No. 4 has been filed and the said Respondent No. 4 is now facing trial before the competent Criminal Court. In the above circumstances, the prayers made in the writ petition for further enquiry in the matter and for necessary action against the wrong doer as per the provisions of law appear to have been well taken care of. The only surviving cause of action in the writ petition, therefore, will be the entitlement of the writ petitioner to compensation or ex-gratia, as has been raised in the writ petition, which claim has been argued by Mr. G. Uzir, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Shri Uzir, learned counsel for the peti- tiomer has contended that in the facts of the present case, as evident from the detailed report submitted by the Investigating Officer, the State must be held to be vicariously liable for (the act committed by the Respondent No. 4.The death of the petitioner's husband hav- ingtresulted from the incident in question, compensation of such amount as maybe adjudged by (he Court to be adequate, should be made in favour of the writ petitioner. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Nilabati Behera (Smt) Alias Lalita Behera (through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) - Versus- State of Qrissa and others), reported in (1993) 2 SCC page 746 and Chairman, Railway Board and others - Versus- Chandrima Das (Mrs.) and others, reported in (2000) 2 SCC page 465. A judgment of this Court in the case of Lilabati Baishya -Versus- State of Assam & others, reported in 2004 (2) GLT 366 has also been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) According to the petitioner, death of her husband having been caused by a negligent action on the part of the Respondent No. 4, the State must be held to be vicariously liable for such act either on account of its failure to impart adequate and proper training in handling firearms to the Respondent No. 4 who is a police officer or on account of the fact that the State had engaged employees like the Respondent No. 4, who are negligent and who do not exercise due care and caution in the performance of their duties.