^ BE . ^ \svf' Cc^ BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR f (CHHATTISGARH") | C^ ^ r ir \N.P.^)No. jCf) of^^^2^c? ^ PETITIONER L^-^.-'": l^r ^&^ •••^•ry'- ^" z^ 'w^ 1 / Latel Das Banjare, S/o late Shri Bhukhat Banjare, aged about 50 years, resident of Village Hathnikala, Post Dharampura, Police Station Mungeli, Near Veterinary Hospital, Bilaspur(C.G-) Versus RESPONDENTS. .1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secrejtary, Home Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. i , 2. Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Raipur (C.G.) / 3. Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.) / 5. Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. C.B.I. through its Director, Raipur, (C.G.) . 7. Dr. S.K.Jha, posted at Central Jail hospital, Raipur(C.G-) , 8. Dr. M.L.Jotwani, posted at Central Jail hospital, Raipur(C.G-) 9. Dr. C.S.Tiwari, posted at Central Jail hospital, Raipur(C.G.) .'! 6 WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF !NDIA ~F~ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fCr.) No. 60 of2009 PETITIONER : Latel Das Banjare. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri Om P. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 to 5. Shri Dilip Dubey, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri N.K.Vyas, Advocate for the respondent No. 7 to 9. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 18th day of November, 2010) 1. The petitioner, claiming to be son ofBhukhal Banjare and brother ofRamesh Das Banjare & Shambhoo Das Banjare, seeks a writ of mandamus to the respondent No. 1 to make fresh enquiry through Central Bureau of Investigation and further, to award a compensation in favour ofthe petitioner to the tune ofRs. 15 lacs. 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is the brother of deceased Ramesh Das Banjare and deceased Shambhoo Das Banjare, and son of deceased Bhukhlal Banjare. According to the petitioner, his brothers and father died in mysterious circumstances, while they were in detention injail. The petitioner and his brother Ramesh Das were lodged in Central Jail Raipur after conviction, and Shambhoo Das Banjare and Bhukhal Banjare were lodged in Central Jail, Bilaspur as they were undergoing trial for the offences under section 147, 148, 149, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During their detention, ^l^ ..;--^s^,^ .^'ST^ ^".-^"^ ^ ^. ^ ^g%%&. ti y /'^.^"al^ . gi»s ^zP,'b Shambhu Das died on 31.01.1989, Bhukhal Das died on 11.03.1991 and Ramesh Das died on 22.03.1999. According to the petitioner, the death ofthe above stated persons took place in a mystenous circumstances. 3. On the question of delay, the petitioner submits that all the male family members, including the petitioner, was injail and on being released from jail, the petitioner has taken steps to approach this Hon'ble Court. Thus, there is no laches or inordinate delay. 4. On pemsal ofthe affidavit filed by the respondent-State, it is found that Shambhoo Das was hospitalized on 09.01.1989 for treatment of pneumonia and thereafter, he died on 21.01.1989 and afiter his death, postmortem was conducted wherein the cause of death was shown to be septicemia. In case of Bhukhal Das., the father of the petitioner, he was admitted to the hospital for treatment ofbleeding gastric and duodenal ulcer for several times. On 10.11.1990, he was admitted to the District Hospital Bilaspur where he remained till 13.11.1990.Thereafter, he was again admitted in Jail Hospital, Bilaspur for treatment. On 18.02.1991 he was again admitted to the District Hospital, Bilaspur where he was operated upon and discharged on 08.03.1991. Bhukhal Das was again admitted to the hospital on 10.03.1991 and during the course of his treatment, he died on 11.03.1991 (Annexure R/4). As per the post mortem report, the cause ofdeath was due to septicemia and anemia. 5. In respect of death of Ramesh Das, who died on 22.03.1999, a magisterial enquiry was initiated.In the report ofthe Magistrate, (Annexure R/5), it was found that the Magistrate has noted ^^s^ ^IIIIK^,, ^' dereliction of duty on the part of the doctors. The Magistrate was also of the opinion that had the proper steps been taken, life of Ramesh Das could have been saved. Even the last rites and post mortem was also conducted in the jail itself in presence of the petitioner who was also one of the convicts. In the postmortem report of deceased Ramesh Das, the cause of death was found as administration of poison/which was confirmed by the viscera report. On receipt of the post mortem report which was confirmed by the viscera report, it appears that no action has been token against the erring officers who permitted firstly supply of poisonous material and secondly, administration of the same to Ramesh Das. It is well settled that right to life is sacrosanct fundamental right of a person to live in the society under Article 21 ofthe Constitution of India, and the same can be deprived only in accordance with law. In case on hand, postmortem report as well as viscera report disclosed the reason of death as poisoning. The prosecuting authorities, thereafter, it appears have hushed up the matter and closed the file, which shocks conscience ofa reasonable person. Accordingly, the Director GeneralOfPolice, is directed to get the entire incident with regard to death ofRamesh Das, investigated by a special investigating agency, may be the Crime Investigation Department and take proper steps to initiate prosecution, if any^ of the culprits in accordance with the provisions of law, at the earliest, preferably within a period offour weeks. ^ ^s 8. So far as the grievance ofthe petitioner with regard to payment of compensation is concemed, unless the investigation is complete, no direction to the effect of payment of Rs. 15 lacs as compensation on the ground that the petitioner is the brother ofthe deceased, can be granted at this stage. The petitioner has not pointed out asto whether the deceased Ramesh Das has left behind children or wife, apart from the petitioner. Under a public law obligation, only the widow or children of the deceased may be entitled to compensation, not the brother of the deceased. The petitioner has also not established that he was fully dependent on the deceased brother Ramesh Das. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take appropriate steps, after investigation is done and appropriate case is filed before the competent court oflaw, if any. 9. The decision ofthe Division Bench ofthis Court, in Forumforfact finding and Documentation and Advocacy, Raipur v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others , is not applicable to the facts ofthe instant case as it has not been found whether it was a case of suicidal death or homicidal death, for which the Director General ofPolice, has been directed to initiate investigation afresh. 10. With the aforetasted observation and directions, the writ petition is disposed of with cost, quantified to be a sum of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the petitioner, within a period offourweeks. Amit Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 2006 CRI.L.J. 4372