RAS BIHARI RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State.

(2.) Petitioner is the father of Sanjeet Kumar who died in Sasaram Jail Hospital on 23.4.2003 at 4.30 P.M. while in judicial custody in connection with Sasaram (Darigaon) P.S. Case No. 787 of 2002 registered for the offence under Sections 376, 366A, 379/34 of the Penal Code in which Sanjeet Kumar alongwith his parents was made accused by Rajendra Singh, son of Ram Pyaray Mahto of Village-Karesua, P.S. Darigaon on the allegation that Sanjeet Kumar with the active support and cooperation of his parents eloped with his daughter. In connection with the said case son of the Petitioner was taken in custody on 8.1.2003 and remanded to Sasaram Jail where he complained of insomnia (lack of sleep) on 10.4.2003 and was admitted in Sasaram Jail Hospital, where he committed suicide on 23.4.2003 at 4.30 P.M. This writ petition has been filed praying inter alia to grant the Petitioner adequate compensation as son of the Petitioner never committed suicide in Sasaram Jail Hospital but was done to death at the instance of Rajendra Singh with whose daughter Sanjeet Kumar eloped, made accused and remanded to jail custody. It is further submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that assertion of the State Respondents that son of the Petitioner committed suicide has been raised with a view to protect the jail authorities who in collusion with the parents of the girl plotted the murder of the son of the Petitioner while he remained in judicial custody. In this connection, it is pointed out that under Memo No. 908 dated 23.4.2003, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by Superintendent, District Jail, Sasaram Petitioner was called upon to collect the dead body of his son for performing his cremation. While receiving the dead body Petitioner refuted the claim of Superintendent, District Jail, Sasaram that his son committed suicide, having performed cremation of his deceased son Petitioner approached Sasaram Police for lodging First Information Report but the same was not registered, whereafter he filed Complaint Case No. 376 of 2003 on 28.4.2003 against Rajendra Singh, his brother Raju Singh as also the jail authorities including Chanddeo Yadav constable posted in the Sub-Jail, Sasaram alleging murder of his son by the named accused of the complaint. After receipt of the complaint Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram under order bearing Memo No. 192 dated 29.4.2003 forwarded the complaint for being registered as First Information Report in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Cr. P.C. by 28.5.2003. It is submitted that the First Information Report in compliance of the aforesaid order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram was registered much belatedly on 17.10.2004 vide Sasaram Mufassil P.S. Case No. 564 of 2004 dated 17.10.2004 for the offence under Section 302/120B of the Penal Code against Rajendra Singh, Raju Singh and Chanddeo Yadav, constable posted in Sasaram Sub-Jail. Even after registering the belated First Information Report the police was not proceeding with the investigation in right earnest and Petitioner filed protest petition dated 6.11.2004. During the pendency of the aforesaid protest petition final form dated 28.2.2005 was submitted in Sasaram Mufassil P.S. Case No. 564 of 2004 indicating the allegations to be mistake of fact, whereafter protest petition filed by the Petitioner on 6.11.2004 was numbered as Complaint Case No. 1244 of 2008. With reference to the final form dated 28.2.2005 coupled with the fact that authorities did not conduct any enquiry as was directed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas under order dated 23.4.2003, Annexure-A in the light of the provisions contained in Section 176 of the Cr. P.C. this writ petition has been filed praying inter alia to direct the State Respondents to pay compensation to the Petitioner for the failure of the authorities to proceed with the enquiry, as is required in terms of the provisions of the Cr. P.C. It is submitted that even an under trial prisoner has the constitutional protection under Article 21 of the Constitution which inter alia require that no person including under trial prisoner can be deprived of his right and liberty except by procedure established by law. In the instant case son of the Petitioner is said to have committed suicide while in custody in Sasaram Jail Hospital on 23.4.2003 at 4.30 P.M. Enquiry under Section 176 Cr. P.C. should have been conducted by Sri Surya Narayan Singh, Executive Magistrate in compliance of the order dated 23.4.2003, Annexure-A. In the instant case according to the Petitioner no enquiry, whatsoever was conducted by the authorities before informing the Petitioner that his son committed suicide on 23.4.2003 at 4.30 P.M. in the toilet of the jail hospital, which is evident from Memo Nos. 908, 912 dated 23.4.2003, 24.4.2003 whereunder the Superintendent, District Jail, Sasaram informed the Petitioner and Chairman, National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, respectively that Sanjeet Kumar son of the Petitioner committed suicide while he had gone to toilet to attend the call of nature on 23.4.2003 at 4.45 P.M. According to the Petitioner the authorities before writing letter dated. 23.4.2003 and transmitting wireless message dated 24.4.2003 concluded that his son committed suicide, although post mortem on the dead body of his son Sanjeet Kumar was also not performed by then, as such, without there being any enquiry or post mortem on the dead body of Sanjeet Kumar the Superintendent, District Jail, Sasaram could not have stated under Memo Nos. 908, 912 dated 23.4.2003, 24.4.2003 that Sanjeet Kumar committed suicide.

(3.) Counsel for the State opposed the prayer with reference to the averments made in the two separate counter affidavit of Respondent nos. 3 and 5. State Counsel, however did not produce the original record of the magisterial, police enquiry in compliance of my order dated 1.4.2011 in spite of several indulgence granted. He only produced Xerox copy certified to be true of the statement of the witnesses examined on 23.4.2003 and other documents maintained in connection with the death of the son of the Petitioner by an officer who has signed for Superintendent, District Jail, Sasaram. From the statement of the witnesses it does not appear that the statement was recorded by Sri Surya Narayan Singh, Executive Magistrate appointed to conduct the magisterial enquiry under order dated 23.4.2003 by the District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram. With the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 3 earlier counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 5 in Cr. W.J.C. No. 86 of 2006 has been annexed placing on record Final Report No. 20 of 2005 dated 28.2.2005 submitted in the criminal case filed by the Petitioner alleging murder of his son inside the District Jail Hospital, Sasaram finding that allegation of murder is mistake of fact. Learned counsel for the State further informed this Court that after filing of the aforesaid counter affidavit, Annexure-A in the said criminal writ case Petitioner did not pursue the same and allowed the criminal writ petition to be dismissed for default. The apathy of the Petitioner towards the criminal writ petition filed by him according to the counsel for the State is a pointer for dismissing the present writ case for compensation, as Petitioner having not pursued the allegation of murder to its logical conclusion; he is only interested in extracting money for the unfortunate incident of suicide by his son. With the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 5 the authorities have placed on record the letter bearing Memo No. 908 dated 23.4.2003, Annexure-A, whereunder Superintendent, District Jail, Sarasam informed the Petitioner that his son committed suicide in the District Jail Hospital, Sasaram on 23.4.2003 at 4.45 P.M. where he was under treatment. Alongwith counter affidavit of Respondent No. 5 the order of the District Magistrate, Sasaram bearing Memo No. 1320 dated 23.4.2003, Annexure-B has also been annexed, wherefrom it appears that thereunder Sri Surya Narayan Singh, the Executive Magistrate, Sasaram was deputed to. conduct the inquest on the dead body of Sanjeet Kumar with further direction to Sri Singh to conduct the magisterial enquiry to confirm whether Sanjeet Kumar committed suicide as has been asserted by the Superintendent, District Jail, Sararam under letter No. 910 dated 23.4.2003 referred to in the said order. Annexure-C appended with the said counter affidavit of Respondent No. 5 is the inquest report of Sanjeet Kumar drawn by Sri Surya Narayan Singh, the Executive Magistrate who in compliance of the order of the District Magistrate dated 23.4.2003, Annexure-B held inquest on the dead body of Sanjeet Kumar. Perusal of the inquest report indicate that in column nos. 8, 9 of the inquest report learned Magistrate stated that he was informed that deceased committed suicide. While holding inquest duty is cast on the Magistrate to indicate in columns 5, 8 and 9 of the inquest report the apparent cause of death of the deceased. In the instant case, Sri Surya Narayan Singh, Executive Magistrate has not recorded of his own in the inquest report that deceased Sanjeet Kumar committed suicide. Annexure-D to the said counter affidavit is the Letter No. 3006 dated 24.9.2003 of the Deputy Collector, Confidential Section, Rohtas, Sasaram, whereunder the Deputy Collector in response to the letter of the Superintendent, District Jail, Sasaram bearing No. 2629 dated 7.9.2003 forwarded the report of the magisterial enquiry dated 28.6.2003 to the Superintendent, District Jail, Sasaram for being forwarded to the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi. The magisterial enquiry report enclosed with letter dated 24.9.2003 is bearing Memo No.17 dated 28.6.2003, author whereof is Sri Saligram Sah, Executive Magistrate, Sasaram who conducted enquiry to confirm the nature of death of Sanjeet Kumar in compliance of the order of the District Magistrate, Sasaram contained in Letter No. 1716/C dated 2.6.2003.