Supreme Court of India
AMOL VITTHALRAO KADU versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. on 10 December 2018
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1227
1227
AMOL VITTHALRAO KADU
A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1585 of 2018)
DECEMBER 10, 2018
B
[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 recoverthe same from the Investigating Officer-in-Charge – Appeal by theCInvestigating Officer-in-charge taking plea that unless and untilliability is fixed, court should not have directed recovery from him –Held: Direction of the High Court is modified to the extent that asand when the liability for the crime in question is fastened, the Stateshall be at liberty to recover the compensation amount from theDconcerned erring officials.
Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited and Anr. v. Stateof 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 :
E
[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 284 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 284
referred toPara 5
[2012] 12 SCR 191relied onPara 6
F
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 1585 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2016 of the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench at Aurangabad in CriminalWrit Petition No. 39 of 2015.
G
Subodh S. Patil, Lokesh K. Choudhary, Debashish Mukherjee,Advs. for the Appellant.
Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Ms. Suvarna Ganu, AnoopKandari Advs. for the Respondents.
H
1228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
AThe Judgement of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
3
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. Criminal Writ Petition No.39/2015 was preferred by parentsand daughter of one Pravin alleging that said Pravin met with unnaturalBdeath while he was in police lock-up, Vajirabad Police Station, Nanded.
3. After considering the relevant documents, the High Courtdirected the State to make over a sum of Rs.7 lakhs by way ofcompensation to the writ petitioners. The compensation has been madeover by the State to the writ petitioners. The High Court also directedCthat said amount be recovered from the Investigating Officer-In-chargeas under:
“6. The amount ordered shall be recovered from the InvestigatingOfficer/in-charge at the relevant time in Crime No.104 of 2013,Vimantal Police Station, Nanded. The State shall also pay costsDof this petition to the petitioners.”
4. The Investigating Officer-In-Charge has appealed against theaforementioned direction contending, inter alia that unless and until theliability or responsibility is fixed, the appellant ought not to have beendirected to make over the payment.
E5. The law on the point has been summarized by this Court inD.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal[1]:- “54. Thus, to sum up, it is now a well-accepted proposition inmost of the jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensationis an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhapsthe only suitable remedy for redressal of the establishedFinfringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by thepublic servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts.The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liabilityto which the defence of sovereign immunity is not available andthe citizen must receive the amount of compensation from theGState, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrongdoer.In the assessment of compensation, the emphasis has to be on thecompensatory and not on punitive element. The objective is toapply balm to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor orthe offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offence(irrespective of compensation) must be left to the criminal courts H1(1997) 1 SCC 416
AMOL VITTHALRAO KADU v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
in which the offender is prosecuted, which the State, in law, isduty bound to do. The award of compensation in the public lawjurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other action like civilsuit for damages which is lawfully available to the victim or theheirs of the deceased victim with respect to the same matter forthe tortious act committed by the functionaries of the State. Thequantum of compensation will, of course, depend upon the peculiarfacts of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be evolved inthat behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for the establishedinvasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under the publiclaw jurisdiction is, thus, in addition to the traditional remedies andnot in derogation of them. The amount of compensation as awardedby the Court and paid by the State to redress the wrong done,may in a given case, be adjusted against any amount which maybe awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil suit.”
6. In a case[2] dealing with default on part of the officials indepositing the amount in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, SwatanterKumar, J. had observed:
“(iv) In this case, the claimants would be entitled to the costs ofRs 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) which shall be deposited atthe first instance by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh andthen would be recovered from the salaries of the defaulting/erringofficers/officials in accordance with law. The inquiry shall becompleted within a period of six months from today and a reportshall be submitted to the Secretary General of this Court on theadministrative side immediately thereafter.”
7. Learned counsel for the State accepts that in connection withthe death of the said Pravin, proceedings are pending in which the questionof liability will be gone into and determined.
8. We therefore modify the aforesaid direction of the High Courtand 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 fromthe concerned erring officials.
9. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeal disposed of.
2Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.(2011)9 SCC 354
AB
C
D
E
F
G
H