Case Note & Summary
The case arose from the custodial death of Shravan Suryavanshi @ Sarvan Tamre, a 34-year-old man who was arrested on 18 January 2024 in connection with FIR No.47 under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, for possession of 6 litres of raw Mahua liquor valued at Rs.1,200. He was taken into custody by Head Constable Uma Shankar Rathore of Police Station Seepat and lodged at Central Jail, Bilaspur. On 21 January 2024, he was referred to CIMS Hospital due to deteriorating health and died on 22 January 2024 at about 6:00 a.m. Post-mortem examination revealed multiple injuries, including bleeding from the tip of the penis, laceration on occipital scalp, swelling on wrist and legs, and contusions on right thigh and nape of neck. The cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to complications from head injury caused by a hard and blunt object. Since the death occurred in custody, the Jail Superintendent requested a judicial inquiry, which was conducted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur under Section 176 CrPC. The inquiry report dated 22 July 2024 concluded that death appeared to be caused by complications from head injury. The legal heirs—wife and daughters of the deceased—filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No.76 of 2024 before the High Court seeking fair investigation and compensation of Rs.50 lakh. The High Court by judgment dated 3 October 2024 held that the deceased was subjected to custodial violence and died as a result thereof, but awarded only Rs.1 lakh compensation and did not direct registration of FIR or investigation. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present special leave petition. The Supreme Court noted that the offence alleged was punishable with maximum three years' imprisonment, yet the person died in custody. The Court observed that the High Court's compensation was completely inadequate and not commensurate with the gravity of loss. During proceedings, the Director General of Police took the stance that since the Section 176 CrPC inquiry report had not been received by police, there was no occasion to register a criminal case. The Director General (Prisons) and Principal Secretary (Home) gave perfunctory explanations. The Court found this explanation false and reprehensible, noting that the State's own reply before the High Court disclosed that judicial inquiry was instituted and report awaited. The Court termed the stance a cover-up and disregard of statutory procedure governing custodial deaths. The Court emphasized that compensation in public law is exemplary damages and must have deterrent effect. It indicated that the State must register FIR, investigate, and provide adequate compensation. The final operative directions were not included in the provided excerpt, but the Court clearly favored the petitioners and held the State accountable.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Custodial Violence and Fundamental Rights - Compensation in Public Law - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - High Court found that deceased died due to custodial violence and held that compensation is exemplary damages for violation of fundamental rights; however, it awarded only Rs.1 lakh which was inadequate - Held that compensation must be commensurate with the gravity of loss and have deterrent effect on State officers (Paras 4,8,10-11). B) Criminal Procedure - Investigation of Custodial Death - Section 176 CrPC Inquiry Report - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 176 - Judicial Magistrate First Class conducted inquiry under Section 176 CrPC and reported that death appeared caused by head injury; State authorities failed to register FIR or investigate claiming report not received - Held that State cannot avoid criminal investigation by failing to forward inquiry report; it must register FIR and act on report (Paras 7-8,12-15). C) Criminal Procedure - Duties of Senior State Officials - Statutory Compliance in Custodial Death - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 176 - Director General of Police, Director General (Prisons), and Principal Secretary (Home) gave perfunctory and intransigent explanations; State's own reply showed awareness of inquiry - Held that the explanation was a cover-up and disregard of statutory procedure; accountability required (Paras 12-15). D) Compensation Law - Quantum of Compensation for Custodial Death - Deterrent and Exemplary Damages - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Deceased was 34 years old and died in custody due to injuries; High Court's Rs.1 lakh compensation was pittance and completely inadequate - Held that compensation should not be minimal; it must reflect gravity and have deterrent effect (Paras 4,8,10-11). E) Writ Petition - High Court's Omission to Direct Criminal Action - Article 226 - High Court overlooked prayer for action against responsible officers; only granted compensation - Held that High Court should have directed registration of FIR and investigation; Supreme Court found this omission serious (Paras 3-4,8,10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in awarding only Rs.1 lakh compensation for custodial death despite finding custodial violence; whether the High Court should have directed registration of FIR and investigation; whether State authorities' failure to act on Section 176 CrPC inquiry report was lawful
Final Decision
The Supreme Court found the High Court's compensation of Rs.1 lakh completely inadequate and not commensurate with the gravity of custodial death. It further found the State officials' stance that no FIR could be registered because the inquiry report was not received to be false and reprehensible. The Court criticized the senior officers' conduct as a cover-up and disregard of statutory procedure. Final operative directions were not included in the provided excerpt, but the Court favored the petitioners and held the State accountable, indicating that FIR registration and investigation must proceed and compensation must be enhanced.
Law Points
- Custodial death violates fundamental rights
- Compensation in public law is exemplary damages and must be deterrent
- State liable for acts of its employees
- Section 176 CrPC inquiry report must be acted upon by police
- Failure to forward judicial inquiry report does not excuse non-registration of FIR
- High Court must direct investigation into custodial death
- Compensation must be commensurate with gravity of loss
