AMOL VITTHALRAO KADU versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1227, Supreme Court of India, 2018
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1227
AMOL VITTHALRAO KADU
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1585 of 2018)
DECEMBER 10, 2018
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Compensation:
Compensation for custodial death – Granted by High Court
– Directing the State to pay at the first instance and then to recover
the same from the Investigating Officer-in-Charge – Appeal by the
Investigating Officer-in-charge taking plea that unless and until
liability is fixed, court should not have directed recovery from him –
Held: Direction of the High Court is modified to the extent that as
and when the liability for the crime in question is fastened, the State
shall be at liberty to recover the compensation amount from the
concerned erring officials.
Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited and Anr. v. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 354 : [2012]
12 SCR 191 – relied on. 
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 :
[1996] 10  Suppl.  SCR  284 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1996] 10  Suppl. SCR  284
referred to
Para 5
[2012] 12 SCR 191
relied on
Para 6
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1585 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal
Writ Petition No. 39 of 2015.
Subodh S. Patil, Lokesh K. Choudhary, Debashish Mukherjee,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Ms. Suvarna Ganu, Anoop
Kandari  Advs. for the Respondents.
[2018] 14
S.C.R. 1227
1227
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1228                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Criminal Writ Petition No.39/2015 was preferred by parents
and daughter of one Pravin alleging that said Pravin met with unnatural
death while he was in police lock-up, Vajirabad Police Station, Nanded.
3. After considering the relevant documents, the High Court
directed the State to make over a sum of Rs.7 lakhs by way of
compensation to the writ petitioners.  The compensation has been made
over by the State to the writ petitioners.  The High Court also directed
that said amount be recovered from the Investigating Officer-In-charge
as under:
“6.  The amount ordered shall be recovered from the Investigating
Officer/in-charge at the relevant time in Crime No.104 of 2013,
Vimantal Police Station, Nanded.  The State shall also pay costs
of this petition to the petitioners.”
4. The Investigating Officer-In-Charge has appealed against the
aforementioned direction contending, inter alia that unless and until the
liability or responsibility is fixed, the appellant ought not to have been
directed to make over the payment.
5. The law on the point has been summarized by this Court in
D.K. Basu  vs.  State of West Bengal1:-
“54. Thus, to sum up, it is now a well-accepted proposition in
most of the jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation
is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes
perhaps
the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established
infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the
public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts.
The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability
to which the defence of sovereign immunity is not available and
the citizen must receive the amount of compensation from the
State, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrongdoer.
In the assessment of compensation, the emphasis has to be on the
compensatory and not on punitive element. The objective is to
apply balm to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or
the offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offence
(irrespective of compensation) must be left to the criminal courts
1(1997) 1 SCC 416
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1229
in which the offender is prosecuted, which the State, in law, is
duty bound to do. The award of compensation in the public law
jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other action like civil
suit for damages which is lawfully available to the victim or the
heirs of the deceased victim with respect to the same matter for
the tortious act committed by the functionaries of the State. The
quantum of compensation will, of course, depend upon the peculiar
facts of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be evolved in
that behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for the established
invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under the public
law jurisdiction is, thus, in addition to the traditional remedies and
not in derogation of them. The amount of compensation as awarded
by the Court and paid by the State to redress the wrong done,
may in a given case, be adjusted against any amount which may
be awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil suit.”
6. In a case2 dealing with default on part of the officials in
depositing the amount in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, Swatanter
Kumar, J. had observed:
“(iv) In this case, the claimants would be entitled to the costs of
Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) which shall be deposited at
the first instance by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh and
then would be recovered from the salaries of the defaulting/erring
officers/officials in accordance with law. The inquiry shall be
completed
within a period of six months from today and a report
shall be submitted to the Secretary General of this Court on the
administrative side immediately thereafter.”
7. Learned counsel for the State accepts that in connection with
the death of the said Pravin, proceedings are pending in which the question
of liability will be gone into and determined.
8. We therefore modify the aforesaid direction of the High Court
and state that as and when the liability for the crime in question is fastened,
the State shall be at liberty to recover the amount of compensation from
the concerned erring officials.
9. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
2Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited and Anr.  Vs.  State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
(2011)9 SCC 354
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeal disposed of.
AMOL VITTHALRAO KADU v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]