Case Note & Summary
Background: The matter arose from a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the wife of a deceased undertrial prisoner. The petitioner sought independent investigation into the custodial death of her husband and compensation. The deceased was lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur. On 02.07.2025, the petitioner was informed of his death. The post-mortem report dated 04.07.2025 recorded six injuries, including incised wounds and contusions, all ante-mortem within 0-6 hours before death. No FIR was registered despite written complaints. Facts: The petitioner submitted a written report on 03.07.2025 at Police Station Ratanada. She also sought preservation of CCTV footage and filed RTI applications. A judicial inquiry was entrusted to the ACJM (CBI Cases), Jodhpur. The court earlier directed jail officials to file affidavits. Legal Issues: Whether the investigation into custodial death was fair and impartial; whether the State is liable for custodial violence and must pay compensation; and whether directions for SIT/CBI investigation should be issued. Arguments: The petitioner contended that the injuries indicated custodial violence and violation of Article 21. She relied on Lalita Kumari for mandatory FIR registration, Nilabati Behera and D.K. Basu for state liability. She alleged intimidation and suppression of evidence. Court's Analysis: The court noted the post-mortem findings raised serious questions. It held that the jail Superintendent bears responsibility to explain injuries sustained in custody, citing the doctrine of custodial responsibility. The court highlighted systemic corruption in jails and the need for prompt inquiry to preserve evidence. It emphasized that custodial deaths strike at the heart of Article 21. Decision: The final operative directions are not included in the provided excerpt; the court had directed affidavits and expressed grave concern. (Note: The full judgment extends beyond the provided text.)
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Custodial Death and Right to Life - Article 21 of Constitution of India, 1950 - Death of undertrial with multiple ante-mortem injuries raises suspicion of custodial violence; State has duty to protect prisoners and explain custodial deaths; court emphasized heightened sensitivity (Paras 1-4). B) Criminal Procedure - Registration of FIR - Mandatory duty under Lalita Kumari - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 154 - Police failed to register FIR despite complaint; petitioner relied on Lalita Kumari to contend mandatory registration; court took note of failure and lack of fair investigation (Paras 2-3). C) Evidence - Preservation of CCTV Footage and Records - Duty to preserve material evidence - Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 6 - Petitioner sought preservation of CCTV footage and documents; authorities failed to preserve or disclose; court noted risk of evidence being lost due to delay (Paras 2-3). D) State Liability - Vicarious Liability of Jail Officials - Custodial responsibility of Superintendent - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21 - Jail Superintendent cannot shun responsibility to explain injuries sustained in custody; doctrine casts vicarious liability; court directed detailed affidavit (Para 4). E) Compensation - Constitutional Remedy - Power of High Court under Article 226 to award compensation - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Petitioner sought compensation for custodial death; court referred to Nilabati Behera and D.K. Basu for state liability; analysis of quantum not available in provided excerpt (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the investigation into the custodial death of the petitioner's husband is fair, impartial and effective; whether entrustment of investigation to SIT or CBI is warranted; and whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for violation of Article 21.
Law Points
- Custodial death violates Article 21
- State has constitutional obligation to protect persons in custody
- Jail administration bears vicarious liability for injuries to prisoners
- Registration of FIR mandatory under Lalita Kumari
- Courts can award compensation for violation of fundamental rights
