The Bombay High Court decided to grant the compensation of ₹15 lakh to the kin of the deceased.
In the case of Sunita Kalyan Kute v. State of Maharashtra, the petitioner, her son Pradip and his wife Sunita were the sugarcane harvesters and labors.
For the crushing season of 2018-2019 they had gone to Babanraoji Shinde Sugar and Allied Industries, Turk Pimpri, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur. Pradip was the owner of Tractor and Trolley, so also, he was the driver. In pursuant to agreement executed with the Sugar Industries, deceased Pradip was transporting sugarcane from his tractor on 04.11.2018.
He was along with petitioner, wife Sunanda and cousin brother Bhimrao Kute. When their tractor was proceeding from Narkhed area, they were proceeding from Police Station Out Post of village Manegaon, Tq. Madha, Dist. Solapur. It was around 3.30 p.m. and their tractor was intercepted by Police Head Constable Mr. Kumbhar and Mr. Kshirsagar and two other persons and they started assaulting Pradip on the count that as to why he has played tape recorder in the tractor.
The petitioner is the unfortunate mother of a 23 years old young person, who died for alleged police atrocities, She has also prayed for the disciplinary action against respondent Nos.4 and 5.It will not be out of place to mention here itself that deceased Pradip Kalyan Kute was married to one Sunanda, however, from the death certificate issued by Songiri Grampanchayat, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad.
At that time, both the Head Constables dragged 6 tractor driver from the tractor. He had fainted by that time. The mother and wife of the driver got down from tractor trolley. Both the police officers took the tractor driver in Police Out Post room towards western side. The driver was not able to walk on his own. The ladies were raising voice.
However, afterwards the two police officers with the other persons made the tractor driver sit in a Swift car and took him to hospital in Manegaon. He was married about four months only prior to his death. The witnesses are consistent enough in saying that the assault was by kicks and fist blows as well as stick. They have also stated that Pradip felt giddiness and still he was dragged to Police Station.
Therefore, grant of compensation in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the established violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is an exercise of the Courts under the public law
Observing that the powers of the police are not ‘unfettered’ and that it cannot treat any citizen in an ‘inhuman manner.’
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court directed the State government to pay compensation of over ₹15 lakh to the kin of a man who died in police custody.
A Division Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Abhay Waghwase said that the State, being the protector of citizens, was required to compensate them if its employees subject citizenry to any form of torture.
“…custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilized society governed by the rule of law. Though police have powers to control the actions of the people and the crime; yet, it is not unfettered under the guise of exercise of the said power they cannot torture or deal with a citizen in inhuman manner. The State is the protector of the life of its citizens if it’s employee undertakes torturous act under the guise of power, then it has to compensate such citizen,” the Bench said in its order.
The Bench took into account the report of the District Magistrate and the post-mortem report, which showed 43 external injuries on Pradip’s person that were are ante-mortem and inflicted within 24 hours of the incident.
The court concluded that In custodial death the injuries should have been inflicted when the person was in any way in the custody of the police officer and, therefore, we take the inquiry report given by learned Magistrate as the strong piece of evidence to support the contention of the petitioner that death of Pradip was a custodial death, which is one of the heinous crimes.
“In custodial death the injuries should have been inflicted when the person was in any way in the custody of the police officer and, therefore, we take the inquiry report given by the Magistrate as a strong piece of evidence to support the contention of the petitioner that Pradip’s death was a custodial death, which is one of the heinous crimes,” the Bench said.
In its order, the Bench opined that such situation would not have occurred, if the constables told the deceased in a ‘dignified manner’ to lower the volume of his tape recorder.
“When there was no reason for interception and then no reason for police atrocities, there is violation of fundamental rights of the deceased. Therefore, grant of compensation for the established violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is an exercise of the Courts under the public law jurisdiction for penalizing the wrong doer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen,” the order stated.
Advocate SR Kedar appeared for the petitioner. Additional Public Prosecutor AM Phule represented the State. Advocate MS Bhosale appeared for the two constables. BY: AYUSHI BHUSHAN,1st YEAR BA.LLB(INTEGRATED), BANASTHALI UNIVERSITY, RAJASTHAN
1 Comment
Adv Rajendra vaingankar · July 16, 2023 at 7:41 am
In these the accused to be convicted in IPC 302, since their intention were to kill,
Barring few police officer , many are inhuman and behaving like a britisher officer