*THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :1219 OF 2000 % 21.11.2008 Between: # Smt. Pothagoni Laxmi. …Petitioner And $ Govt. of A.P. and anothers. …Respondents ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Sri Ch. Siddaiah ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: G.P. for Home < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: 1. 1994(3) ALT 131 2. AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT 1960(1) 3. (1995) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 262 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1219 of 2000 Between: Smt Pothagoni Laxmi @ Kalal Laxmi W/o late Narsimha Goud, aged 28 years, Occ:Household, R/o Singur Vilage, Pulkal Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Govt. of A.P. Rep.by its Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Hyd. 2. The supdt. Of Police, Medak District, at Sanga Reddy. 3. Mr Narayana, Circle Inspector of Police, Sadasivpet Police Station, Medak District. 4. The Station House Officer, Kondapur, P.S. Medak Diostrict. 5. Bandari Manaiah, A.R.Constable No.2192, Amberpet, Hyderabad. 6. G.Ashok, s/o Srisailam, aged 25 years, R/o Getuvanampalli, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation, as the husband of the petitoner was killed by the police in the lock up and the petitioner nourish a big family consisting of 3 boys and 1 girl and to produce all the records pertaining to the death of her husband i.e. late Narasimha Goud s/o Mallaiah Goud, cause an enquiry into his death at the hands of police and to book the erring police under Section 302 IPC and to suggest preventive measures to see that such unfortunate lock up death as happened in her unfortunate husband, do not recur in future and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.H.SIDDAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1219 of 2000 ORDER: The husband of the petitioner, by name Narasimha Goud, was employed as a Heavy Vehicle Driver with a private firm at Hyderabad. He was also said to be the office bearer of Bhagyanagar Petroleum Tanker Drivers Cleaners & Workers Union, Hyderabad. The native place of Narasimha Goud is Singur in Medak District. It is stated that on 31.05.1999, Narasimha Goud was proceeding from Singur to Hyderabd on a scooter bearing No.AEP 2104 and on the way, he stopped at a Dhaba Hotel at Markapur Village, where an armed reserve constable of Amberpet, by name B.Maniah, respondent No.5 and his friend, respondent No.6, were also taking tea. According to the petitioner, the scooters of her husband and the 5th respondent were similar and under a mistaken impression, Narasimha Goud tried to start the scooter of respondent No.5. Thereupon, respondents 5 and 6, caught hold of Narasimha Goud, beat him severely and handed over him to Kondapur Police Station, alleging that he tried to commit theft of scooter. A case in Crime No.42 of 1999 was registered under Section 13 of the A.P.Lunatics Act. The petitioner states that the P.S. Kondapur handed over Narasimha Goud to P.S. Sadasivpet, and there 5 or 6 constables have severely beaten him, in the presence of C.I. of police. It is stated that when on the next day i.e, 01.06.1999, the police sensed that Narasimha Goud is going to die, his maternal uncle by name Anjaiah, was called and he was handed over. Narasimha Goud died within 4 or 5 hours, after his release from the police custody. The petitioner states that the death of her husband was caused only on account of the torture and physical assault by the police and claims compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- apart from action against the persons responsible for the death of the deceased. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, by the Circle Inspector of Police. It is stated that respondents 5 and 6 gave intimation to the sub-inspector of police, Kondapur on 31.05.1999 at about 15:00 hours alleging that the deceased Narasimha Goud tried to commit theft and escaped, and that they have caught hold of him by chasing. It is also stated that a Head Constable was deputed, who, in turn, brought Mr.Narasimha Goud to police station and a case was registered. The allegation as to physical assault is denied. According to the counter affidavit, the maternal uncle of the deceased came to the police station with a request to release him, pleading that Narasimha Goud was a lunatic and acordingly at 11:00 A.M. on 01.06.1999, the detenue was released. The death of the deceased is said to be on account of excessive consumption of alcohol. During the pendency of the writ petition, a magisterial enquiry under Section 176 of Cr.P.C. was conducted by the District Revenue Officer and Additional District Magistrate, Medak at Sangareddy. A report was submitted on 17.06.2003. After examining fairly large number of persons, the Additional District Magistrate opined in his report that the death of Narasimha Goud was not due to alcoholic consumption. He also expressed the view that the action of the police is suspicious and excessive force was used against the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the circumstances of the case speak for themselves and admittedly, the deceased was taken into custody at 3:00 P.M. on 31.05.1999 and that he was not produced before any Court. He contends that the very registration of the case is fictitious, since there is nothing like A.P. Lunatics Act, much less, a person can be arrested on the sole ground of his being lunatic. Placing reliance upon certain judgments rendered by the Supreme Court, the learned counsel pleaded that the State is under obligation to compensate the family of the deceased. Learned Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, submits that soon after receiving information from respondents 5 and 6, the deceased was taken into custody and Crime No.42 of 1999 was registered. He contends that since no serious crime was noticed vis-à-vis the deceased, he was released on the next day, when requested by his maternal uncle. It is also pleaded that the FSL Report discloses that the death of the deceased was on account of the excessive consumption of alcohol. It is also urged that the report in magisterial enquiry does not have any evidentiary value, particularly when none of the persons examined therein were subjected to cross-examination. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Nazeer Saheb vs. Bibi Jan[1]. The fact that Narasimha Goud was taken into custody, by the police on 31.05.1999 is not at all in dispute. Not only the said fact was admitted in the counter affidavit, but also there is recorded proof in the form of F.I.R. The allegation against the deceased was that he was escaping with a scooter bearing No.AP 10F 3971 and he was caught hold after a long chase by respondents 5 and 6. Even if this was true, the relevant provision of I.P.C. in the F.I.R. ought to have been either the one relating to theft or attempt to theft. However, the provision mentioned in the F.I.R. is Section 13 of the A.P. Lunatics Act. Inspite of the efforts, this Court could not lay its hands on such an enactment. Assuming that a person is found to be lunatic, the police do not get any power or jurisdiction to arrest him. Anyone, who comes across such persons, has either to take them to the nearby hospital or to any rehabilitation center. Detaining a person, as a criminal on the sole ground that he is a lunatic, is nothing but an attempt to cover up an otherwise illegal act. The subsequent events clearly establish that the mention of an irrelevant provision in the F.I.R. was resorted, to cover up the illegality. The record discloses that the deceased was initially kept in the Kondapur Police Station and on the ground that there is no lock up facility to keep him during night, he was handed over to P.S.Sadasivpet. Several persons, who are said to have witnessed the physical assault on Narasimha Goud by 5 or 6 police constables, have deposed before the Additional District Magistrate. If at all, the police found any basis for arresting, detaining and putting the deceased in the lock up, the natural course of events would have been to produce him before the Court. On the other hand, if the accusation is not serious as to warrant production before the Court, there was no basis for detaining the person in the lock up during night. Either way, there was a clear illegality on the part of the police. The allegation as to torture of the deceased is in the form of oath against oath in this writ petition. It is not at all safe to rely upon them. However, there is documentary proof in the form of post mortem report, which discloses that as many as 13 injuries were found in the form of bruises, on the body of the deceased, which read as follows: 1. Bruise on right manildary region about ½ inch X ½ inch into skin deep 2. Bruise on the left region about ½ inch X ½ inch into skin deep 3. Bruise on the right shoulder about 2 inch X 1 inch skin deep 4. Bruise on the left shoulder about 2 inch X 1 inch skin deep 5. Bruise on the chin about 1 inch X 1 inch skin deep 6. Bruise on the right upper arm about 1 inch X ½ inch skin deep 7. Bruise on the left elbow about 1 inch X ½ inch skin deep 8. Bruise on the right elbow about 1 inch X ½ inch skin deep 9. Bruise on the right wrist about 1 inch X ½ inch skin deep 10. Bruise on the left arm about ½ inch X ½ inch skin deep 11. Bruise on the right side of the chest 12. Bruise on the right thigh about ½ inch X ½ inch skin deep 13. A abrasion right scalper region about ½ inch X ½ inch skin deep It is relevant to mention that neither in the F.I.R. nor in the counter affidavit, it is stated that there are any injuries on the body of the individual, when he was taken into custody on 31.05.1999. Though the Post Mortem Report discloses that the cause of death was not the said injuries, the sequence of events clearly discloses that the deceased was brutally beaten resulting in the said 13 injuries. It is not difficult to imagine the condition of a person, who is inflicted with such injuries. Obviously noticing that he is likely to succumb to injuries, the maternal uncle of the deceased was summoned and he was handed over. This Court is rather shocked to note that the in post mortem report, the doctor, who conducted it, opined that the cause of death was on account of excessive consumption of alcohol. Even this finding was recorded, after receiving the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory. In case, the alcohol was found in the abdomen of the deceased, nothing prevented the Doctor from mentioning the same in the post mortem report and it is silent about it. Certain samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the time taken in the process, utilized for concocting a version, to cover up the high handed and brutal action on the part of the police. It is true that the report submitted in the magisterial enquiry, under Section 176 of Cr.P.C., cannot be treated as a valid piece of evidence. At the same time, the observations made in it after examining various persons cannot be ignored. In Nazeer Sahab’s case (1 supra), this Court came to the conclusion that the deceased therein died on account of the injuries caused to him by the police. The magisterial enquiry under Section 176 of Cr.P.C., in that case, exonerated the police. When the same was cited, it was observed that the findings thereon cannot be treated as final. In spite of a clean chit given in a magisterial enquiry, this Court held the police responsible for the death of the deceased therein, and awarded compensation. The present case stands on a higher footing, inasmuch as the report in the enquiry supports the finding that the deceased died due to the custodial violence upon him, by the police. In Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera vs. State of Orissa and others[2]a n d State of M.P. vs. Shyamsunder Trivedu and others[3], the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the consequences that must ensue a custodial death. Though the present case cannot be said to be the one of custodial death, it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the death was on account of the injuries received by the deceased, while in police custody. The question as to who dealt the blows, needs to be examined by the concerned authority. The petitioner deserves to be compensated for the death of her husband, on account of the injuries caused by the police, while in custody. It is stated that the deceased and the petitioner had four minor children at the relevant point of time. The sole bread winner of the family was done to death for no fault of his. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, awarding a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) as compensation to the petitioner and making clear that the amount, if any, paid by the Sate as compensation to the petitioner, shall be given credit to. The amount shall be kept in the names of the petitioner and her children, in equal shares, in a Nationalised Bank, for a period of three years, in case of major, and till attaining the age of majority, in case of minors. They shall be entitled to withdraw the accrued interest. Respondents 1 and 2 shall cause a detailed enquiry and fix the responsibility on the persons responsible for the injuries inflicted upon late Narasimha Goud, while in custody in Kondapur and Sadasivpet police stations on 31.05.1999 and 01.06.1999. _________ 21.11.2008 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked. (B/o) JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1219 of 2000 Date: 21.11.2008 JSU [1] 1994(3) ALT 131 [2] AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT 1960(1) [3] (1995) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 262