URMILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER of the petitioner in this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay to the petitioner adequate compensation on account of the killing of her son in judicial custody.

(2.) FACTS lie in a narrow compass. Petitioners son Rajesh Kumar Singh alias Pappu Kumar Singh was an accused in Silao P.S. Case No. 283 of 1998, who was on judicial remand and lodged in Biharsharif Jail. On 1.12.1999 he was to be produced in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif and for that purpose he was brought to the court, produced before the learned Magistrate and thereafter while being brought back to the court lock -up, he was shot dead by criminals in the verandah of the court premises. This led to registration of Biharsharif P.S. Case No. 472 of 1999 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Undisputedly, the petitioners son was killed while in judicial custody and it is the plea of the petitioner that the State being protector of the life and property during judicial custody and her son having died due to lack of adequate protection and security, respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

(3.) IN support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera vs. State of Orissa and others (A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1960) and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 35 of the judgment, which reads as follows: