HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRITPETITIONNo. 3063 of2004 Pumshottam Agrawal, aged about 50 yeais, son of Shri Parasram Agrawal, resident of Bariyon, Police Station Dhourpur, Tah. Rajpur, Distt. Sm'guja (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Chief Secretary, Department ofHome, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Secretary, Departinent of Home and Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. The Director General ofPolice, Police Head Quarter, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4. The Inspector General of Police/Speeial Anned. Forces, Raipiir, Chhattisgarh 5. Ttie Commandant, Special Armed Forces, 6 Battalion, Urdana, Distt. Raigarh (CG) 6. The Superintendent of Police, District Surguja (CG) 7. Bharat Singh, Assistant Platoon Commander, Company (C) Special Armed Forces, 6 ' Battalion, Urdana, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 8. The Station House Officer, Police Station Shankargarh, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF moiA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri V.Vijay, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, DeputyAdvocate General for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 12t" day of September, 2008) • 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a compensation of Rs. one crore from fhe Govemment on the ground that the son of petitioner, namely Vivek Agra-wal was murderedby one Santosh Kumar, a constable of6 Battalion, Special Armed Forces, who thereafter committed suicide immediately. The ground raised by the petitioner for grant of compensation is that since Santosh Kumar was an employee|ofthe State. Govemment and the inurder was committed by him, therefore, it is the ^ -2- liability ofthe State Government to grant compensation. Learned counsel furfher submits that since the antecedents of Santosh Kumar was not properly verified before his appointment, therefore this incident had taken place. 2. The dispute involved in this petition is to grant ex-gratia compensation of Rs. one crore. After alleged murder of the son of the petitioner, Santosh Kumar immediately committed suicide. Therefore, it cannot be held that the said incident took place on account of any assignment granted by the State Goyemment in his official duty. Further, the State Govemment cannot be held responsible for any private act of any person, specially in Itoe facts ofthe case, when the accused himselfhas committed suicide and is not available even for a criroinal trial. Thus, the relief claimed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 3. In view of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make any representation, if so advised, before the State Govemment for grant ofsome ex-gratia compensation. No order asto costs. 4. Consequently, M(W)P No. 2672/2004, also stands disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge .Ajnit