IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4085 of 2003 SARSWATI DEVI, wife of Satya Narayan Singh, resident of village Majlishpur, P.S. Kopa, Dist.Saran-petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.The Inspector General, Jail, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.The Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra 4.The Jail Superintendent, Chapra Jail, Chapra,Saran 5.The Jailor, Chapra Jail, Chapra, Saran 6.The Assistant Jailor, Chapra Jail at Chapra, Saran 7.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra 8.The Inspector of Police, Officer-in-charge, Town Police Station, Chapra, Saran-------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner:M/S Manu Shankar Mishra,Advocate Suresh Mishra,Advocate For the State :Mr.Hari Shankar Roy,A.C. to AAG 2 ---- 6. 12.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks direction to the respondent authorities to carry out independent investigation into the custodial death of the petitioner’s son Shashi Bhushan Singh on 30.3.2002 in Chapra Divisional Jail by an independent agency or respondents themselves and for exemplary compensation to the kith and kin of the deceased prisoner. So far as the first direction is concerned, as a matter of fact, the National Human Rights Commission had taken suo motu cognizance of a report of NDTV dated 2.4.2002 regarding killing of six prisoners in Chapra Jail on 30.3.2002 and an investigation team 2 was sent for spot investigation from 16.4.2002 to 24.4.2002 and a report was submitted by the team through letter dated 21.2.2008. The enquiry report has been annexed as Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. In the said enquiry report the investigation team finally recorded in its report as follows : “After the completion of operation on 30.3.2002, a joint report of DM and SP was sent to IG (Prison) and Home Department which is quite elaborate and self-explanatory. The action taken by the administration was quite justified and responsible. With the action of the District administration (Police and DM), the entire town, the citizens of the district especially the business community were happy enough and expressed at least this peace will maintain for 6/7 years till the leaders of the second line crops up. This has approved by the delegation of the Bar Association, member representatives of the public who had very sound objectives for the courageous work done by the DM and SP. The family members of the aggrieved deceased persons have stated in their individual statement that the police had intentionally killed them after capturing the Jail administration. They have first beaten them with lathi and then fired bullet. On the contrary the Post Mortem Report is not supporting their statement. They have said about the bullet injury at different place of the different inmates and 3 death due to injuries caused by fire arms.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to rely upon various decisions of the Supreme Court particularly the case of Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan (Smt) v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and another: (2003) 7 SCC 749 and Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and others:(2006)3 SCC 178 in support of his stand that in case of violation of the fundamental rights of even a convict under Article 21 of the Constitution, the public law remedy of grant of compensation can be awarded. It is submitted by him that there have been serious lapses in maintaining the jail on the part of the State authorities which led to the said situation of lack of control over the prisoners and the consequent firing which took place. In this regard he also relies upon the part of the report of the investigation team of the National Human Rights Commission, just before the final conclusion in which certain comments have been made in which the inadequacy in the strength of the jail staff has been mentioned and the need for proper training to them. 4 Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that it is evident from the last part of the report of the National Human Rights Commission that the action taken by the administration was found to be justified and reasonable and in the said circumstances there could be no occasion for grant of any compensation either under the public law remedy or under the private law remedy. The circumstances in which compensation may be awarded to the prisoners in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution for custodial death or custodial torture or violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 has been clearly enunciated in Sube Singh’s case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in paragraph 46 in the following terms : “46. In cases where custodial death or custodial torture or other violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 is established, the courts may award compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 or 226. However, before awarding compensation, the Court will have to pose itself the following questions: (a) whether the violation of Article 21 is patent and incontrovertible, (b) whether the violation is gross and of a magnitude to shock the conscience of the court, (c) whether 5 the custodial torture alleged has resulted in death or whether custodial torture is supported by medical report or visible marks or scars or disability. Where there is no evidence of custodial torture of a person except his own statement, and where such allegation is not supported by any medial report or other corroborative evidence, or where there are clear indications that the allegations are false or exaggerated fully or in part, the courts may not award compensation as a public law remedy under Article 32 or 226, but relegate the aggrieved party to the traditional remedies by way of appropriate civil/criminal action.” It is evident from a consideration of the criteria laid down for awarding compensation as laid down in the above paragraph in the light of the quoted part of the report of the investigation team of the NHRC that it is not such a case where any such compensation can or ought to be awarded as a public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/