Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that the mother of a deceased individual is entitled to monetary compensation under public law due to the custodial death of her son, and directed the State to pay compensation. The Court declared that the compensation must be seen as a form of redress for the violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench issued a writ of mandamus directing the State to disburse Rs. 2,00,000 to the petitioner within eight weeks, failing which the amount shall attract interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order.

The writ petition was filed by the mother of Suraj Haththel, who had allegedly died due to custodial torture. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing an independent agency, such as the Central Bureau of Investigation, to investigate the custodial death. She also prayed for the post-mortem report, magisterial inquiry report, CCTV footage, and other documents to be made available and for the award of monetary compensation under the principles established in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa.

Also Read: Supreme Court Restores Rejection Of Possession Claim Over 53 Acres In Raidurg | Title Based On Unregistered 1982 Agreement Is Legally Void And Possession Not Proved

The petitioner contended that although the judicial inquiry stated the cause of death to be myocardial infection, the post-mortem report revealed injuries, including abrasions on the forehead and forearm, multiple abrasions and subcutaneous haemorrhage on the knee, a comminuted fracture of the patella, and a penetrating lacerated wound on the leg. These injuries, according to the petitioner, were consistent with physical assault rather than accidental causes.

The petitioner argued that the affidavit filed by the State, through CSP Bhushan Ekka, attempted to obscure the truth and evaded accountability. The State attributed the injuries to a fall on a railway line, a claim the petitioner refuted as implausible and unsubstantiated by any evidence. The presence of multiple severe injuries, contusions, and lacerations allegedly pointed to blunt force trauma.

The State relied on FIR No. 212/2024 at Thana Pali involving "unknown persons," which the petitioner argued bore no relation to Suraj's detention. Furthermore, the petitioner submitted that injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report, although declared insufficient to cause death, substantiated allegations of assault.

The State attributed the death to cardiac arrest due to pre-existing coronary artery disease and habitual alcohol consumption. However, the petitioner contended that custodial torture acted as a proximate trigger and exacerbated an existing condition, establishing State liability.

Regarding the CCTV footage, the petitioner submitted that the judicial inquiry report acknowledged its availability only between 11:00 PM and 2:47 AM, with footage beyond that missing. The State claimed a power cut caused the gap, but the Magistrate reportedly found no supporting evidence such as electricity department records or generator logs, suggesting deliberate withholding of evidence.

The State's defense maintained that the injuries did not contribute to death and relied on the opinion of the post-mortem doctors. The petitioner insisted the deceased's medical vulnerabilities were aggravated by the custodial torture, making the State responsible for the loss of life.

The Court began by referring to the leading case of Saheli v. Commissioner of Police, observing "It is well settled now that the State is responsible for the tortuous acts of its employees."

The Court referred to Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, stating "A claim in public law for compensation for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms... is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection of such rights."

The Court continued, "The defence of sovereign immunity being inapplicable... justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution." The Bench stated that such relief served a broader public purpose by penalizing the wrongdoer and fixing liability on the State.

Citing D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Court remarked: "Custodial violence, including torture and death in the lock-ups strikes a blow at the Rule of Law." The Court further stated, "Custodial violence is a matter of concern... committed under the shield of uniform and authority."

In reference to Ajab Singh v. State of UP, the Court recorded: "When such deaths occur, it is not only to the public at large that those holding custody are responsible, they are responsible also to the Courts under whose orders they hold such custody."

The Court also drew from the Madras High Court decision in Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, observing: "The family of the deceased is crunching under financial difficulties... which are attributed to police excesses."

The Court further referred to Santosh Kumari v. State of HP and Amandeep v. State of Punjab to state compensation for unnatural deaths in custody, regardless of whether the deceased was a convict or undertrial.

Quoting from Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, the Court stated: "There is no reason at all to exclude their next of kin from receiving compensation... Human rights are not dependent on the status of a person but are universal in nature."

The Court concluded that in the present case, "the compensation is in the nature of 'exemplary damages' awarded against the wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty."

The Court held that the petitioner, as the mother of the deceased Suraj Haththel, "is entitled to compensation for wrongful loss of her son and the State... is liable to pay such compensation."

The Court issued a writ of mandamus, stating: "Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances... we are inclined to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-State to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks."

Also Read: Seniority Dispute Dismissed Over Delay and Non-Impleadment | Delhi High Court Rejects CRPF Officers’ Plea After Relegation Due to Training Injury

It further directed: "Failing which this amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of passing of this order."

The Court clarified the execution responsibility: "The Secretary, Home and Police Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh (respondent No.1) or Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh (respondent No.2) shall ensure payment of the compensation awarded within the time limit specified."

Finally, the Court instructed the Registrar (Judicial) to communicate the order: "The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Home and Police Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (respondent No.1) and Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (respondent No.2) forthwith."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General

Case Title: Prema Haththel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:23811-DB

Case Number: WPCR No. 503 of 2024

Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

[Read/Download order]