SMT. NILABATI BEHERA ALIAS LAUT BEHERA (THROUGH THE SUPREME COURT LEGAL AID COMMITTEE) versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 581 · Decided: 24-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA
Cited by 23 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. NILABATI BEHERA ALIAS LAUT BEHERA (THROUGH 
A 
THE SUPREME COURT LEGAL AID COMMITTEE) 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. 
?-
MARCH 24, 1993 
B 
• 
(J.S. VERMA, DR. A.S. ANAND AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 195<>-Alticle 32-1.etter of a mother infomiing 
Supreme Court death of her son in custody-Writ petitimr-Appreciation· of 
evidence-Whether the death of petitioner's son in police custody due to police c 
bTUta/ity. 
)-· 
Constitution of India, 1951>--Articles 32, 226-Death in police cus-
tody-Power of Supreme Court/High Court to award compensation for con-
travention of fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article il--Purpose D 
of public law proceedings-Remedy in public law proceedings-/lole of 
Courts--Payment of Compensation-Fixation-Directions of Supreme Court 
on mode of payment and appropriate actions against individuals responsible 
for custodial death. 
Petitioner's son, aged about 22 years was taken from his home In E 
'r 
police custody at about 8 a.m. on 1.12.1987 by respondent No.6, Assistant 
Sub-Inspector or Police or the Police Outpost in connection with the 
investigation or an offence or theft. He was detained at the Police outpost. 
-
On 2.12.1987, at about 2 p.m. the petitjimer "8me to know that the 
dead body of her son was round on the railway track. There were multiple F 
injuries on the body and his death was unnatural, caused by thooe Injuries. 
~ 
The petitioner alleged in her letter dated 14.9.1988, whieh was treated 
as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, that it was a case 
of custodial death since her son died as a result of the multiple Injuries G 
inflicted to him while he was in police custody and thereafter his dead body 
was thrown on the railway track. It was prayed in the petition that award 
y 
or compensation be made to her, for contravention or the fundamental 
right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
The defence of the respondents was that petitioner'.• son managed to H 
581 
582 
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS 
[1993) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
escape from police custody at about 3 a.m. on 2.12.1987 from the Police, 
Outpost, where be was detained; that thereafter be could not be ap-
prehended in spite of a search and that his dea.d body was found on the 
railway track on 2.12.1987 with multiple injuries, which indicated that he 
was run over by a train. The respondents denied the allegation of custodial 
B death and their responsibility for the unnatural death of petitioner's son. 
On 4.3.1991, this Court directed the District Judge to hold an inquiry 
into the matter and to submit a report. After bearing the parties and 
appreciating the evidence the District Judge submitted the Inquiry Report 
dated 4.9.1991. The District Judge found that petitioner's son died on 
C account of multiple injuries inflicted to him while he was in police custody 
at the Police Outpost. 
D 
E 
F 
The correctness of the finding of the District Judge in his report was 
assailed in this Court. 
The respondents contended that petitioner's son managed to escape 
from police custody at about 3 a.m. on 2.12.1987; that be was run over by 
a passing train and sustained the fatal injuries; that the responsibility of 
the respondents for his safety came to an end the moment he escaped from 
police custody; and that the factual foundation for State's liability for 
payment of compensation for violation of the fundamental right to life 
under Article 21 was absent. 
Allowing the petition, this Court, 
HELD: (per J.S. Verma, !. on his behalf and on behalf of N. 
Venkatachala, !.) 
1.01. There is no cogent independent evidence of any search made by 
the police to apprehend petitioner's son, if the defence of his escape from 
police custody be true. On the contrary, after discovery of the dead body 
on the railway track in the morning by some railwaymen, it was much later 
G in the day that the police reached the spot to. take charge of the dead body. 
This conduct of the concerned police officers is also a significant cir· 
cumstance to assess credibility of the defence version. (591 G-H] 
1.02. The medical evidence comprising the testimony of the doctor, 
who conducted the post-mortem, excludes the possibility ofall the injuries to 
H the deceased being caused in a train accident while indicating that all of 
.--4.. .. 
-+ 
-
-~ 
• 
'r 
-
NILABATillEHERA v. STATE OF ORISSA 
583 
them could result from the merciless beating given to him. (594 H·595AJ 
1.03. An inquiry
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.