SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been instituted by the wife of deceased gulab Singh claiming compensation for wrongful death caused to her husband while he was in police custody. The petitioner has approached this court on the allegation that her husband, who was about 28 years old, had gone to Shoghi to meet the Junior engineer of the Public Works Department. On the evening of 8. 1. 2001, a telephone call was received from the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Kandaghat by one Hira Nand asking him to call Jagdish Chand, brother of the deceased. Information was imparted by the Assistant Sub-Inspector on telephone itself that the deceased Gulab Singh had been arrested in an excise case and two boxes of illicit liquor had been found in his possession. The petitioner alleges that jagdish Chand, brother of the deceased, was informed that deceased had jumped near Boileauganj from a running bus and has sustained injuries. His condition was serious and Jagdish Chand should reach snowdon Hospital, Shimla. A criminal case under the Punjab Excise Act was reported to have been registered against him. Petitioner pleads that Jagdish Chand (brother of the deceased) hired a private vehicle from Sadhupul and reached Kandaghat from where one AS1 and two constables, his other brother Bharat Singh and Pan-chayat Ward Member Hira Singh accompanied him. They reached Indira Gandhi medical College at about 12. 30 a. m. on 9. 1. 2001 and found that Gulab Singh was lying in an unconscious state in the hospital. They noticed that he had injuries on his head, shoulders, eyes, arm, knees and private parts. He died in the hospital on 9. 1. 2001 at about 10. 25 p. m. Petitioner alleges that her husband was not given medical treatment in time and that he had died in custody of the police because of unnatural causes. She submits that her allegations in the petition are further fortified from the fact that the post-mortem of the deceased was not carried out till 11. 1. 2001, i. e. , about two days after his death. Other allegations pointing out as to how the death of her husband occurred and the treatment given to him while he was in detention have been made in the petition.

(2.) THE respondents have denied the allegations of illegal detention of the husband of the petitioner. It is submitted that a case f. I. R. No. 4 of 2001 under section 61 (1) (xiv) of the Punjab Excise Act has been registered against the deceased at Police station, Kandaghat on 8. 1. 2001 at about 2. 30 p. m. The respondents plead that when he was being brought by the police personnel of Police Post, Sairy to Police Station, kandaghat, the deceased escaped from their custody near Boileauganj in Shimla and in this process sustained injuries on his skull. He was immediately taken to the indira Gandhi Medical College for treatment. Respondents are emphatic in stating that the petitioner was in possession of 24 pouches of 750 ml liquor mark 'heero No. 1', which was against law. His death in the hospital is admitted.

(3.) PETITIONER has pleaded violation of fundamental rights, breach of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and submits that deceased has been deprived of his life without following due process of law and in grave and flagrant violation of right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of india. Respondents submit that the petition involves disputed questions of facts, the allegations made in the petition are unsubstantiated. In these circumstances, it is urged that this court is not the proper forum for determining disputed questions of facts. Reliance is also placed on the report of the inquiry conducted by the Sub Divisional magistrate (Rural), Shimla under section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974, which exonerates the police of any wrongdoing.