Calcutta High Court | Appeal for Custodial Death Compensation Dismissed | Compensation Under 2019 Scheme Arises Only After Conclusive Finding of Unnatural Death
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Calcutta Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi dismissed an appeal challenging the refusal of compensation for an alleged custodial death. The Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge that compensation cannot be summarily directed at the stage when charge-sheets have only been submitted, without exhausting the statutory process of law. The Bench further recorded that the question of compensation under the West Bengal Correctional Services Prisoners (Unnatural Death Compensation) Scheme, 2019, arises only upon a conclusive finding of unnatural death, which remains unestablished at present.
The matter arose from the death of Gafur Molla, father of the appellant, who allegedly died while in custody of the Excise Department. The appellant claimed that his father was unlawfully detained on August 28, 2023, at the Balarampur Excise Camp without being formally arrested or produced before a Magistrate. It was asserted that no arrest memo, seizure list, or case diary was prepared in relation to his detention. The appellant alleged that his father was subjected to physical assault during this illegal custody, sustaining several injuries, which ultimately resulted in his death on September 2, 2023, at Baruipur Sub-Divisional Hospital.
The writ petition filed in 2024 sought multiple reliefs. These included registration of a First Information Report, initiation of departmental enquiry against the excise and police officials allegedly responsible for torture, compensation for the custodial death, and preservation of CCTV footage of the correctional homes and excise office covering the relevant dates. The petitioner also requested that the post-mortem report be reviewed by an independent medical board to ensure fairness and accuracy.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the authorities registered a criminal case against the officials involved. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted and investigated the matter. Upon conclusion, the SIT filed charge-sheets against two accused under Sections 167, 218, 330, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and against three others under Sections 167, 218, and 34 of the IPC. The allegations primarily related to wrongful detention, preparation of incorrect records by public servants, and causing hurt to extort confession.
The learned Single Judge, while considering these developments, disposed of the writ petition on April 21, 2025. The Court observed that compensation could not be directed at that stage, as the matter was under criminal trial and the statutory provisions required to be exhausted first. While certain reliefs, including continuation of investigation, were noted, the prayer for compensation was denied.
Challenging this part of the order, the appellant argued before the Division Bench that the post-mortem report demonstrated prima facie custodial torture, which should have sufficed to grant compensation. Reliance was placed on Lok Adhikar Sangh v. State of Gujarat (1997 SCC OnLine Guj 563) and Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2017) 10 SCC 658, contending that in cases of custodial death, the next of kin must be compensated.
The State, however, submitted that not every death in custody qualifies as unnatural. Reference was made to the West Bengal Correctional Services Prisoners (Unnatural Death Compensation) Scheme, 2019, which requires proof of unnatural death of a prisoner within a correctional home. The respondents further argued that the cause of death was not conclusively linked to the alleged injuries, and that the issue remained sub judice before the trial court.
The Division Bench stated the reasoning of the Single Judge, stating: “At this stage, when charge-sheet has only been submitted before the court without exhausting the provisions of law, it will not be prudent to summarily direct for any compensation.”
On the statutory framework, the Court recorded: “Compensation for custodial death has been claimed in terms of the schedule appended to the Scheme of 2019… in order to get compensation under the scheme, it is essential to prove that the deceased was a prisoner as contemplated under Section 2(g)… An unnatural death is to be established. Unfortunately, the post mortem report is not explicit as to the cause of death.”
The Division Bench considered the medical board’s opinion, noting: “Upon evaluation of the injuries described in the post-mortem report, it is evident that none of the injuries, individually or collectively, are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature in a healthy individual. However, the deceased had significant pre-existing cardiovascular diseases… The trauma inflicted by these injuries could have potentially acted as a triggering factor, exacerbating the underlying heart condition and contributing to death… the possibility of trauma playing a role… cannot be ruled out.”
The Court also referred to judicial precedents. With respect to Lok Adhikar Sangh, it observed: “It is a matter of trial to arrive at a final conclusion as to whether physical beating… has led to a stress causing his death. At this stage, it is sufficient that there is possibility of beating leading to stress contributing towards percipitation of mio cardial infection.”
The Division Bench noted that while the post-mortem recorded six ante-mortem injuries, the autopsy surgeon had not concluded on the cause of death pending chemical examination. Furthermore, the medical board refrained from affirming a direct causal connection. In such circumstances, the Court held that the requirements under the 2019 Scheme were not satisfied.
The Bench reasoned: “In order to be entitled to compensation for custodial death in a correctional home in West Bengal, the beneficiary is initially, under obligation to demonstrate that the deceased died an unnatural death. Simply, any death occurring while the deceased was under incarceration in a correctional home in West Bengal does not qualify for award of compensation under the scheme of 2019.”
The Division Bench concluded that the Single Judge had acted correctly in refusing compensation at this stage. It held: "We are of the view that learned Single Judge was quite justified in refusing to grant compensation in terms of the West Bengal Correctional Services Prisoners (Unnatural Death Compensation) Scheme, 2019 at this stage and as such, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. We affirm the same."
"Consequently, the instant appeal being MAT 867 of 2025 along with connected applications, if any, is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Samim Ahammed, Adv.; Mr. Arka Ranjan Bhattacharya, Adv.; Ms. Gulsanwara Pervin, Adv.; Mr. Anirudh Singh, Adv.; Mr. Aminuddin Khan, Adv.
For the State: Mr. Md. Galib, Ld. Sr. Govt. Adv.; Mr. Tanay Chakrabarty, Adv.; Mr. Debraj Sahu, Adv.
Case Title: Salim Molla vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:CHC-AS:1739-DB
Case Number: MAT 867 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025
Bench: Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
