1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4297/05 (Smt. Saraswati Devi V/s. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Judgment :: 12.12.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr. Praveen Balwada along with Shri Suresh Dhanwal, for the petitioner. Mrs. Parinitoo Jain, Addl. GA, for the State. For the death of her husband in a jail, the petitioner, a widow, has knocked the doors of this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband, Ajit Singh, was serving his sentence in the District Jail, Alwar. On 01.03.2003, while in jail custody, he was severally beaten up by the other prisoners and by the guards of the Jail. Because of the injuries sustained by the petitioner's husband, he expired on the same day. Shri Satish Sharma, a Jailor, lodged a FIR for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC against Jay Singh, Rishpal, Bhagwan, Sharwan, Pappu @ Yashwant and other jail inmates. According to the FIR, the police had arrested, Ajit Singh, who was absconding and had lodged him back in the District 2 Jail. Since Ajit Singh had absconded from the jail, the above-named persons and other inmates assaulted him. He was rescued by Leelaram, Deepchand, Trilok and Sitaram. Around 4' O clock, in the evening, his condition deteriorated. Therefore, he was sent to the hospital. But, the doctor at the hospital declared him dead. After a thorough investigation, a challan was submitted against ten persons and the trial commenced. However, vide judgment dated 20.09.2003, the District & Sessions Judge, Alwar acquitted all the accused persons. Despite the acquittal, the State did not file any appeal against the acquittal order. According to the petitioner, the accused persons were acquitted only because the eye-witnesses and the other witnesses had turned hostile during the trial. The petitioner has, further, claimed that she is a poor and hapless lady, who has three children to look after. Since, she finds it extremely difficult to financially look after the welfare of the children, since she has already lost the sole bread earner of the family, she has approached this Court seeking compensation under the writ jurisdiction. Mr. Praveen Balwada, the learned counsel for 3 the petitioner, has argued that admittedly on 01.03.2003, the petitioner's husband was lodged in the District Jail, Alwar. According to the FIR, he was assaulted by the inmates. These two facts have not been controverted by the State itself. Although, the accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court, the fact remains that Ajit Singh had died within the jail premises after being assaulted by the inmates. In fact, while acquitting the accused persons, even the learned trial Court had observed that Ajit Singh had died while he was in the custody of the District Jail. Although, the learned trial Court had acquitted the accused persons because of the lack of evidence, but it had directed the Chief Secretary to hold an inquiry into the matter. Furthermore, the petitioner has lost the bread earner of the family, because of the omission committed by respondent No.3, the Jailor of the District Jail, Alwar. Hence, the State is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. In order to buttress his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Death of Sawinder Singh Grover, RE [1995 Supp. (4) SCC 450], People's Union for Civil Liberties V/s. Union of India & Anr. [(1997) 3 SCC 433], Amitadyuti Kumar 4 V/s. State of West Bengal & Ors. [(2000) 9 SCC 404] and State of Maharashtra V/s. Christian Community Welfare Council of India & Anr. [(2003) 8 SCC 546]. On the other hand, Mrs. Parinitoo Jain, the Addl. GA for the State, has contended that since the accused persons were acquitted by the learned trial Court, it cannot be said that Ajit Singh had died due to the physical assault by the inmates in the jail. Therefore, the State is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is the paramount duty of the State to protect the people. The State is not only the trustee of the people, but while dealing with the custody of a convicted prisoner, it is the custodian of the inmates of the jail. Hence, an onerous duty lies on the custodian to ensure the safety and the lives of the inmates. This duty is imposed not only by the statute, but most importantly by the Constitution of India. Article 21 of the Constitution of India proclaims that every person has a fundamental right to the security of his body. His life can 5 be denuded only by procedure established by law. His life cannot be snatched away by an omission committed by the State. The officers of the Jail, thus, have a constitutional duty to protect and promote the life of the prisoners. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere fact of incarceration does not denude the prisoners' of their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Thus, the State cannot deny its duty towards Ajit Singh. The State admits that Ajit Singh was serving his sentence in the district jail when he absconded from the said jail. It further admits that he was subsequently arrested by the police and was brought back to the jail to serve out the remaining part of his sentence. Thus, the State admits that on 01.03.2003 Ajit Singh was in custody of district jail, Alwar. It further admits that Ajit Singh was physically assaulted by few inmates and by few guards. Even if the accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court, but it does not absolve the State by its liability to pay compensation to the petitioner. In a criminal trial, an onerous burden of proof lies on the prosecution which it must discharge. According to 6 the judgment dated 20.09.2003, since the witnesses had turned hostile, since they had not supported the prosecution case, it was a case of “no evidence”. Therefore, the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Secondly, the finding of the Criminal Court is not binding on a Civil Court. Thirdly, since the State has admitted the custody of Ajit Singh, the factum of his death, the State is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. After all, Ajit Singh has died not a natural death, nor suicidal death, but a death caused under mysterious circumstances. Thus, the death of petitioner's husband is unnatural. The petitioner has been running from pillar to post since 2003, begging and pleading for justice for herself and for her three children. The plight of a widow in India is an open secret. The petitioner has not only to feed and clothe the children, but also has to educate them and to settle them in their lives. The petitioner and the children are the responsibility of our society as well as of the State. They are, like the rest of the citizen, endowed with certain inalienable right. These, fundamental rights include the right 7 to live with human dignity, the right to exist above a mere animal existence. The State cannot turn a Nelson's eye to the plight of a widow saddled with the responsibility of bringing up three children. As the trustee of the people, it is for the State to rush to the rescue of the petitioner, to uplift her from the depths of poverty, and to wipe the tears from her eyes and to restore her to human dignity. Considering the fact that the petitioner has three children, this Court directs the State to pay Rs.1,00,000/- in cash to the petitioner and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the three children. The amount which shall be given to the children shall be deposited in the form of fixed deposit in a nationalized bank till the children reach the age of maturity. However, in case of dire need, the petitioner shall be free to move an application before this Court to seek disbursement of the amount so deposited in the form of fixed deposit in the name of the children. It is, hereby, clarified that grant of compensation would not preclude the petitioner from pursuing any other remedy available in law. 8 For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is, hereby, allowed. [R.S.CHAUHAN]J A.Asopa/