Supreme Court of India
SMT. KEWAL PATI versus STATE OF U.P AND ORS. on 6 April 1995
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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.
;,
--
~-
~
J
'
}.
A
SMT. KEWAL PATI
v.
STATE OF U.Pc AND ORS.
APRIL 6, 1995
B
(R.M. SAHA! AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 : Altic/e ?J.
Right to life-Deprivation contrary to /aw-Compensation for-Convict undergoing sentence killed by co-accused-Held it is duty of authorities to c ensure safety of convict undergoing sentenc~fe and children of deceased convict held entitled to compensation.
The petitioner's husband, a convict serving sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Pe11al Code, was killed by a co· actused in the jail. The wife and children of the deceased convict filed a writ petition seeking D compensation.
Allowing the petition, this Court
HELD ! A prisoner does not cease to have bis Constitutional right except to the extent he has been deprived of it in accordance with law. Even E though the petitioner's husband was a convict and was serving his sentJ'llce yet the authorities were not absolved of their responsibility t!).....U.:-. bis life and safety in the jail. Since. killing took place when be was in jail, it resulted in deprivation of the life contrary to law. He is survived by his wife and three children. His untimely death has deprived the petitioner F and her children of his company and affection. They are entitled to compensation. The respondent· State is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 within three months from the date of this order. [208-F, E, G]
Francis cora/ie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Ors., AIR (1981) SC 746 and A.K Roy v. Union of India, AIR (1982) G S.C. 710, relied on.
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1119 of 1991.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
[1995] 3 S.C.R.
208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
A K.V. Viswanathan for the Petitioner.
A.S. Pundir for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
B
B The petition was entertained on a letter sent by the wife of the deceased Ramjit Upadhaya who was killed by a co-accused while serving out his sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. in Central Jail, Varanasi. The Petitioner and her children have claimed compensation both in law and on compassionate grounds. Reports were obtained from the Inspector C General of Prisons, U.P. and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Varanasi. They confirm that Ramjit Upadhaya was killed by co-accused. A connter affidavit was also filed by Deputy Jailor, Central Jail, Varanasi, admitting that Ramjit Upadhaya was killed by co-accused, Happu, against whom case under Section 303 has been registered. Affidavit was filed on behalf of the Government as well stating that there was no provision in the U.P. Jail D Manual for grant of compensation to the family of the deceased convict.
Ramjit Upadhaya was a convict and was working as a Nambardar in the jail. He was strict in maintaining discipline amongst the co- accused. It was due to his strictness in his behaviour as Nambardar that he was E attacked and killed by Happu - a co- accused. Even though Ramjit Upad-haya was a convict and was serving his sentence yet the authorities were not absolved of their responsibility to ensnre his life and safety in the jail. A prisoner does not cease to have his constitutional right except to the extent he has been deprived of it in accordance with law (See Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors., AIR F 1981 SC 746 andA.K Roy v. Union of India, AIR (1982) SC 710. Therefore, he was entitled to protection. Since killing took place when he was in jail, it resulted in deprivation of his life contrary to law. He is survived by his wife and three children. His untimely death has deprived the petitioner and her children of his company and affection. Since it has taken place G while he was serving his sentence due to failnre of the authorities to protect him, we are of opinion that they are entitled to be compensated.
In the result this petition is allowed by directing that the State of U.P. shall deposit a sill!' of Rs. 1,00,000 within three months from today, with the Registrar of this Court. A sum of Rs. 50,000 out of this amount H •hall be deposited in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank and the interest >
{ _
}
~ '
K.PATiv. STATEOFU.P.
of it shall be paid to the wife and the children. The remaining amonnt shall A be paid to the wife by the Registrar after being satisfied about the iden-tification of the petitioner. The amount in deposit shall be paid to the wife on her option after all. the children become major. In case ~f petitioner's death p~ior to the children becoming major, the amount shall be divided equally between the surviving children.
B
T.N.A.
Petiticw allowed.