ORDER [ENTITY], J.
1. Petitioner, Smt. [ENTITY] has filed this Misc. Petition under Article 226 of the [ACT] seeking under noted reliefs :
(a) To direct the respondents to submit a copy of Magisterial enquiry conducted by Shri [ENTITY] in the matter;
(b) To direct prosecution of the persons found guilty in the said enquiry;
(c) To award adequate and reasonable compensation to the petitioner for the loss of her beloved father;
(d) To grant any other reliefs, which this Hon. Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case; and
(e) To allow this petition with costs.
2. It is not disputed that father of the petitioner, namely [ENTITY], aged about 55 years, an employee of Hukumchand Mills Limited, Indore, was arrested by the police on 6-1-1992 at Indore, along with many other Mill-workers in connection with "Jail Bharo Andolan" organised in protest against the closure of the said Mills. After arrest, [ENTITY] and other arrested Mill-workers were lodged in Central Jail, Indore. On 7-1-1992 in the morning, riot broke out inside the Jail during which [ENTITY] sustained injuries. He was shifted to T Choithram Hospital, Indore, where he succumbed to his injuries on 24-1-1992.
3. A Magisterial enquiry was ordered by the Distt. Magistrate, Indore. The enquiry was conducted by Shri [ENTITY], Additional Distt. Magistrate, Indore, who submitted his report on 17-1-1992. A copy of the report is placed on record and marked as annexure R-l.
4. According to the petitioner, her late father was beaten up by the police and other security guards of the Jail causing injuries which ultimately resulted into his death.
As against it, the respondents have averred that the agitating mill-workers who were lodged in Jail had turned riotous on 7-1-1992, and that they tried to assault Jail authorities and other detenus in the Jail which led to stampede. The convicts and other undertrial prisoners lodged in the Jail had in retaliation attacked the mill-workers causing injuries to the deceased amongst others and which ultimately resulted into his death.
5. The moot question is : "Whether it is a case of custodial death as alleged by the petitioner"?
6. I have heard Shri [ENTITY], learned Sr. Counsel appearing with Shri [ENTITY] for the petitioner and Shri [ENTITY], learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondents.
7. It is not disputed that death of [ENTITY] was caused by multiple injuries sustained by him while he was still in Jail custody. As per post mortem report the nature of death was homicidal. So, irrespective of the fact as to whether injuries were inflicted by the security guards of the Jail or by the detenus lodged in the Jail, the obvious and logical inference would be that it was a case of custodial death, for which the respondents are responsible and liable. The learned Magistrate who conducted the enquiry, in his report, has squarely held the Jail administration responsible and liable for the incident. The Magistrate in para 3 of his report has found:
blls Li"V gS fd tsy vf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa deZpkfj;ksa ij izk.k ?kkrd geyk ugha fd;k x;kA cfYd vkanksyudkfj;ksa ij cafn;ksa us tyk ydM+h vkSj iRFkjksa ls izk.k geyk fd;kA As regards the deceased [ENTITY], the learned Magistrate was of the view :
mijks xokgksa ds c;ku ds vk/kkj ij esjk vfHker ;g gS fd Jfed yYywflag firk 'khryflag ds flj ij cafn;ksa }kjk ydM+h ls izgkj djus rFkk okMZ ua- 4 ds cSjd ds xsV esa HkxnM+ ij iSj dh maxyh njokts esa Qal tkus ls og fxj iM+k] ftlls nwljs vkUnksyudkjh Hkh iwjs fxj iM+s rc cafn;ksa us mlds lkFk ekjihV dh mls xaHkhj pksV yxus ds eq[; dkj.k flj ij iRFkj yxus rFkk ydM+h ls ekjus ls vk;h gksxhA In the end the Magistrate concluded :
nksuksa i{kksa ds xokgksa ds dFkuksa ds fo'kys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSaus ;g ik;k fd fnukad 6&1&1992 dks fey Jfedksa dh fxjrkjh dks ysus dh fLFkfr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s iqfyl daVksy :e esa ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk tsyj dks funsZ'k fn;s Fks fd os tsy esa iq.kZ O;oLFkk djsaA ;g rF; Jhefr bafnjk 'kekZ] v/kh{kd tsy us vius tsy v/kh{kd ds vkMZj cqd esa i`"B 65 ij vafdr fd;k gSA blds ckotwn Hkh tsy esa Jfedksa dks nksigj dk [kkuk fn;k vkSj jkr dk Hkkstu ugha fn;k vkSj ;fn fn;k Hkh rks dqN vkUnksyudkfj;ksa dks blds vykok ckn fd i;kZIr la[;k esa vks<us fcNkus ds fy;s njh] dacy] jtkbZ;ka ugha nh xbZ rFkk dqN cSjdksa esa vko';drk ls vf/kd vkUnksyudkjh Jfed j[ks x;s ftlls muesa vkks'k FkkA blfy, mUgksus 6&1&1992 dks lfdZV xsV ds lkeus 'kke dks tsy can gksus ds iwoZ ukjs ckth ,oa 'kksj xqy fd;k FkkA bl laca/k esa ofj"B tsyj Jh tSu us Jfedksa }kjk iRFkj ckth djus o ukjs ckth djus dh iqf"V dhA Jh f=os.khflax] lgk;d tsyj us crk;k fd tsy esa fnukad 6&1&1992 dks dsoy 500 yksxksa dh O;oLFkk dh xbZ FkhA tcfd vf/kd la[;k esa etnwj fxjrkj gksdj vk;sA ;fn fnukad 6&1&1992 dks tsy esa Hkkstu] vks<us] fcNkus ds i;kZIr O;oLFkk le; ij gksrh rks ekjihV ;k >xM+s fnukad 7&1&1992 dks ukScr ugha vkrhA bl iwjh ?kVuk esa Jh egs'kpanz xqIrk vLi"V ,oa lgk;d tsyj tks lHkh cSjdksa esa lHkh izdkj dh O;oLFkk djus ds fy, mkjnk;h gSaA viuh ftEesnkjh;ksa dks fuHkkus esa vlQy jgsa ;fn os fnukad 6&1&1992 ls gh tsy esa vko';d O;oLFkk djrs rks laHko gS tsy esa dksbZ ekjihV ;k >xM+k gksus dh ukScr ugha vkrhA
8. It will be thus seen that for whatever happened on that morning inside the Jail, the Jail authorities were fully responsible. So even if it to be accepted that the injuries to the deceased were caused by the detenus in the Jail, the respondents cannot escape their responsibility for the consequences that followed the said riot. The Jail authorities were clearly guilty of not performing or at least being negligent in performance of their duty to protect the limbs and life of the detenus. It is now well settled that even where a person is convicted and imprisoned under sentence of Court, he does not lose all the fundamental rights belonging to any person under the [ACT] including the right under [SECTION], not to be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law : see cases of [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT].
9. Dealing with the question of custodial death, Hon. the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], has observed :
"It is axiomatic that convicts, prisoners or undertrials are not denuded of their fundamental rights under [SECTION] and it is only such restrictions, as are permitted by law, which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental right by such prisons. It is an obligation of the State, to ensure that there is no infringement of the indefeasible rights of a citizen to life, except in accordance with law while the citizen is in its custody. The precious right guaranteed by [SECTION] of the [ACT] cannot be denied to convicts, under-trials or other prisoners in custody, except according to procedure established by law. There is a great responsibility on the police or prison authorities to ensure that the citizen in its custody is "not deprived of his right to life. His liberty is in the very nature of things circumscribed by the very fact of his confinement and therefore his interest in the limited liberty left to him is rather precious. The duty of care on the part of the State is strict and admits of no exceptions. The wrong doer is accountable and the State is responsible if the person in custody of the police is deprived of his life except according to the procedure established by law."
10. It is, therefore, immaterial and not relevant at this stage, to determine as to who whether Jail guards or the detenus were responsible for the injuries and ultimate death of [ENTITY]. What this Court is required to determine in this petition is only this, whether fundamental right to life of the deceased has been violated and the obvious answer is YES. A custodial death, observed the Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra), "is perhaps one of the worst crimes in the civilised society governed by the rule of law." The liability of the State Government to pay compensation cannot be, therefore, doubted.
11. As regards quantum of compensation, the deceased at the time of his death was aged about 55 years and earning wages Rs. 1,860/- per month. Having regards to the totality of the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- would be proper compensation to be awarded to the petitioner and other heirs of the deceased.
12. Accordingly, I allow the petition and direct the State of Madhya Pradesh to pay sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and other heirs if any of the deceased. The respondents are further directed to pay sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the petitioner as costs of this petition. The Collector, Indore will take necessary steps to ascertain as to who are the heirs of the deceased besides the petitioner. The amount of compensation shall thereafter, be distributed amongst them within 3 months under intimation to the Registrar of this Court. Award of this compensation will not, however, affect the right of the petitioner or any other heir of the deceased to resort to such other remedies as may be available to them in law on account of the said custodial death except that the amount awarded herein shall be taken into consideration for adjustment in the event of any other proceeding taken by any such heir for compensation on the same ground.
13. The State is also expected to take necessary action to ascertain and fix the responsibility of the individuals accountable for the riot that broke out in the Jail and which resulted into the custodial death of [ENTITY] and causing injuries to many others. Appropriate actions against erring officers shall thereafter be taken.
14. The petition thus stands disposed of as aforesaid. The security amount if any shall be refunded to the petitioner after verification.