# Prema Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1502
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-20
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 579 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prema-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54169
- **Pages:** 17

## Text

_Characters 0–39,993 of 51,314. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39993 for what follows._

1502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 2 ILRA 1502
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 579 of 2025

Prema Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether a case of custodial death has been made out; and if so, whether the Writ Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India should direct payment of compensation to the family of
the victim.
HEADNOTE
Constitution of India - Arts.21, 226 - Custodial death - Unnatural death in custody - Suicide in
jail - Compensation - Public law remedy - Strict liability of State

Held: Petitioner's minor son, an undertrial prisoner, died in judicial custody and the post mortem
report indicated the cause of death as asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging - Inquest report
submitted under Section 176 CrPC concluded that the deceased committed suicide and no
material indicating harassment by jail authorities was found - However, the fact remains that
the death occurred in custody and was an unnatural death, attracting strict liability of the State
- National Human Rights Commission, upon consideration of the material on record,
recommended payment of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the next of kin and the State
accepted the recommendation, yet the amount was not disbursed - It was undisputed that the
deceased was in the custody of the State and had committed suicide, resulting in a patently
unnatural death, and therefore the State was held to be absolutely liable for the unnatural death
of the deceased, as an amplified duty is cast upon the State for the death of a prisoner in custody
without any exception - The State cannot shirk its duties and responsibilities for providing
better facilities to prisoners - The death having occurred while in custody and control of the
State authorities unmistakably established a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and failure to discharge this obligation attracted
public law liability - The Court rejected the defence of the State by holding that the explanations
offered were neither cogent nor sufficient to displace the presumption, and the onus which
squarely lay upon the State to account for the circumstances leading to the death had not been
satisfactorily discharged - Suicide would amount to an (internal) intentional injury and would be
an unnatural death wherein the liability would squarely fall on the State - Persons who suffer an
unnatural death in a prison are also victims and there is no reason to exclude their next of kin
from receiving compensation only because the victim of an unnatural death is a criminal - The
Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is
2 All. Prema Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1503
empowered to award monetary compensation as a remedy in public law for established
violations of fundamental rights, independent of and in addition to remedies available in private
law - Monetary compensation, while not a complete substitute for the loss of life, could provide
some measure of solace for the bereaved family and act as a deterrent against future custodial
violence - The writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to pay
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased.
Further directions were issued that in case of custodial death: (i) the family members of the deceased must
be informed immediately by the jail authorities and a panchnama with independent panchas shall be prepared
forthwith in accordance with Section 174 CrPC (corresponding Section 194 BNSS); (ii) post mortem
examination must be conducted promptly indicating cause of death and video recording thereof shall be
mandatorily carried out; (iii) an inquest report by the Judicial Magistrate shall be submitted in accordance with
Section 176 CrPC (corresponding Section 196 BNSS) after considering all material; (iv) monetary
compensation must be paid to provide solace to the next of kin as per the determination of the National
Human Rights Commission; and the State Government was directed to frame guidelines fixing compensation
by adopting relevant parameters akin to the multiplier method based on age, income and dependants as
recognised under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (Paras 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22) (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746;
Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2017) 10 SCC 658;
Suo Motu Custodial Violence and Other Matters Relating to Prison Conditions v. State of Meghalaya (2023) 5
GLT 19 (Meghalaya High Court);
Rasheda Khatun v. State of Tripura, W.P.(C) No. 797 of 2021 (Tripura High Court);
Smt. Meena v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-C No. 7217 of 2019 (Allahabad High Court);
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy (2000) 5 SCC 712;
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416;
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141.

List of Acts
Constitution of India
List of Keyword
Custodial death; Unnatural death; Suicide in custody; Strict liability of State; Public law remedy; Article 21;
Human dignity; Compensation; Fundamental rights violation; Writ jurisdiction; State liability.
CASE ARISING FROM
From custodial death in District Prison and non-payment of compensation recommended by the National
Human Rights Commission.
Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Rama Kant Dixit, Uday Kumar
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.
1504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein
the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to
pay just and adequate compensation to the petitioner on account of unnatural death of her minor
son (Sukhvinder) on February 20, 2024 in District Prison Pilibhit. The petitioner in furtherance
seeks direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to ensure action against
the guilty persons, who are responsible for the unnatural death of the son of the petitioner.

FACTS

1. The factual matrix of the present writ petition is delineated below:

a. A criminal case bearing case no. 742/2016, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC
and 3/4 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Puranpur, District Pilibhit was registered against the minor son of
the petitioner, for which he had already undergone imprisonment for about three years and ten
months and was enlarged on bail on February 12, 2022.

b. Petitioner's son was required to appear before the trial court, but due to unavoidable
circumstances, he could not appear. Consequently, he was arrested by the police on February 7,
2024 in execution of a warrant and thereafter detained in jail.

c. On February 20, 2024, the petitioner was informed by the respondents that her son had
died in custody. Before handing over the dead body to the family for cremation, a Panchnama and
Post Mortem examination were conducted on the same day. The Panchnama indicated that the
deceased had died on account of hanging by a muffler and the post mortem report disclosed the
cause of death of the deceased as 'asphyxia due to antimortem hanging' with the presence of
ligature mark on the neck.

d. The petitioner was informed by respondent authorities about the various financial
beneficial schemes and was assured for the grant of the same vide letter dated February 22, 2024.

e. On October 5, 2024, an inquest report to inquire into the cause of death of the deceased
was submitted by Judicial Magistrate in accordance with Section 176 CrPC (corresponding Section
196 BNSS), after taking into consideration the Panchnama and Post Mortem report. It was
observed therein that the deceased had succumbed to suicide by hanging himself and it was further
noted that no external injury of any kind was found on the body of the deceased. Additionally, it
was observed that no information regarding harassment and instigation by jail authorities had been
given by the jail inmates.

f. The National Human Rights Commission, after considering the panchnama, inquest
report, and post mortem report furnished by the jail authorities, vide order dated October 10, 2024,
directed payment of compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the nearest family member of the deceased.
2 All. Prema Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1505

g. In pursuance thereof, the State issued a letter dated November 21, 2024 to the Director
General of Police, Prison Administration, communicating the direction of NHRC to pay
compensation to the next of kin of the deceased prisoner and submit an inquest report with regard
to the same as soon as possible.

h. The petitioner moved an application dated December 6, 2024, seeking compensation
on account of the unnatural death of her son.

i. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not granting
compensation to the petitioner for the unnatural death of her son while in custody of District Jail,
the writ petitioner has come before this Court by filing the present writ petition.

CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has made the following submissions:-

a. The minor son of the petitioner was subjected to torture by the police personnel of
prison due to non fulfilment of illegal money demands, including a monthly expenses of Rs. 4500/-
for relief from such torture, which ultimately resulted in his unnatural death.

b. The petitioner was pressurized by the respondent authorities to perform the last ritual
immediately.

c. Despite the petitioner having moved an application for compensation and
notwithstanding the assurance given by the respondent authorities, no compensation has been
provided to the petitioner so far.

d. By the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner's fundamental rights
guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India have been violated.

e. To buttress his aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has relied on the following Supreme Court and High Courts judgments:-

i. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746 [Supreme Court]

ii. Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons reported in (2017) 10 SCC 658 [Supreme
Court]

iii. In Suo Motu Custodial Violence and Other Matters Relating to Prison
Conditions v. State of Meghalaya reported in (2023) 5 GLT 19 [Meghalaya High Court]

iv. Rasheda Khatun v. State of Tripura in W.P.(c) no.797 of 2021 [Tripura High
Court]
1506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

iv. Smt. Meena v. State of U.P. and others in Writ-C No.7217 of 2019 [Allahabad High
Court]

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has made the following submissions:-

a. It is submitted that the petitioner's son died by hanging himself from the ventilator of
the toilet situated within the prison premises. The incident was an act of suicide and there is no
material on record to suggest any negligence, misconduct or involvement on the part of the
respondent-authorities in causing death of the deceased.

b. It is further submitted that the State Government, upon consideration of the
recommendation made by the National Human Rights Commission, has accorded approval for
payment of compensation amounting to ₹3,00,000/- to the nearest family member of the deceased.

c. It is submitted that the compensation could not be disbursed immediately as the process
of verification and identification of the rightful next of kin of the deceased is presently underway.
Upon completion of the said identification process and receipt of the requisite budgetary allocation
from the Government, the approved compensation shall be released in accordance with law.

d. It is also submitted that after conducting an inquiry, an inquest report was submitted by
the Judicial Magistrate, wherein the cause of death of the deceased was opined to be ante-mortem
hanging, and no material was found to indicate any external injury or custodial violence.

ISSUE

Whether a case of custodial death has been made out? If yes, then whether the Writ
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should direct compensation to be paid to
the family of the victim?

ANALYSIS

4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions canvassed by the learned
counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials placed on record.

5. Custodial death depicts one of the most serious challenges to the protection of fundamental
rights within the Indian Justice System. The right to life and human dignity guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India is an intrinsic, inviolable and omnipresent right which is
extended even to an individual who is illegally arrested and detained by the State. The Constitution
of India does not vouchsafe the suspension of fundamental rights merely because a person is in
custody. On the contrary, the Constitutional jurisprudence casts the onus upon the State for the
death of such nature, therefore raises presumption on the State and demands strict Constitutional
scrutiny [see State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy and others reported in
(2000) 5 SCC 712].
2 All. Prema Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1507

6. The phenomena of custodial death exposes the dichotomic tussle between the coercive
powers of the State and the Constitutional mandate to protect individual liberty. Law enforcement
agencies being vested with the wide powers of arrest, detention and investigation to maintain public
order and ensure effective administration of justice are attenuated by constitutional limitations
designed to prevent abuse and arbitrariness. Custodial death can result from torture, coercion,
neglect, abuse of power by law-enforcement authorities [see D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416].

7. It is flabbergasting to note that there is no express mandate in our Indian Constitution for
the grant of compensation for unlawful detention or custodial death. India has ratified to the
International Covenant in Civil and Political Rights, 1966 wherein Article 9(5) states that 'Anyone
who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to
compensation'. In consistence with the above ratification, India owes its obligation to the
international community. Furthermore, the Law Commission of India, in its 273rd report on
implementation of United Nations Convention Against Torture, has observed custodial violence
marked by weak accountability, lack of transparency and institutional protection of errant officials.

8. If the death in custody occurs naturally then State can not be faulted with, but if the death is
caused unnaturally then State is absolutely liable for its act/omission which resulted in death of an
individual. The International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC) has also issued guidelines on
investigating deaths in custody, wherein a clear distinction between natural and unnatural death has
been carved. According to ICRC, death is the irreversible cessation of all vital functions including
brain activity. It is natural when it is caused solely by disease and/or aging process. It is unnatural
when the causes are external such as intentional injury, negligence or unintentional injury (death by
accident).

9. The Tripura High Court in the decision of Rasheda Khatun (Supra), directed the State to
pay compensation for custodial death, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
D.K. Basu (Supra) wherein it was observed that the purpose of compensation is to ameliorate the
wound of the kin of the deceased and not to act as a deterrent for the transgressor. The relevant
paragraphs of the judgment are delineated below:-

" 17. For determination of the quantum of compensation we may profitably refer to the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu v. State of W.B: reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416
wherein the Apex Court has held that the objective of such monetary compensation is to apply balm
to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or the offender, as awarding appropriate
punishment for the offence must be left to the criminal courts in which the offender is prosecuted.
Observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph-54 of the judgment is as under:

"54. Thus, to sum up, it is now a well accepted proposition in most of the jurisdictions,
that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes
perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental
right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. The
claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign
immunity is not available and the citizen must receive the amount of compensation from the State,
1508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrongdoer. In the assessment of compensation,
the emphasis has to be on the compensatory and not on punitive element. The objective is to apply
balm to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or the offender, as awarding appropriate
punishment for the offence (irrespective of compensation) must be left to the criminal courts in
which the offender is prosecuted, which the State, in law, is duty bound to do. That award of
compensation in the public law jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other action like civil
suit for damages which is lawfully available to the victim or the heirs of the deceased victim with
respect to the same matter for the tortious act committed by the functionaries of the State. The
quantum of compensation will, of course, depend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no
strait-jacket formula can be evolved in that behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for the
established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under the public law jurisdiction is,
thus, in addition to the traditional remedies and not in derogation of them. The amount of
compensation as awarded by the Court and paid by the State to redress the wrong done, may in a
given case, be adjusted against any amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of
damages in a civil suit."

18. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the Judgment cited to (supra) we direct the state respondents to pay a sum of Rs.
10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs) as compensation to the petitioners for the custodial death of Jamal
Hossain by depositing the said amount with the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks
from today. The petitioners who are the widow, children and mother of the deceased shall be
entitled to equal share of the said amount of compensation. On deposit of the compensation,
Registry shall disburse the share of the mother and wife of the deceased by transferring the same to
their individual bank account. The share of the children shall be invested in term deposits in their
names in any nationalised bank until they attain majority and the monthly interest generated from
those deposits shall be transferred to the account of their mother for their educational and other
expenses.'

10. In Suo Motu Custodial Violence and Other Matters Relating to Prison Conditions
(Supra), the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong has held that there is no room to apply the strict
liability theory when it comes to a death of a person in custody of the State. The State's liability in
such regard is absolute unless it demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Court that the death was due
to natural causes. The Court would reasonably infer otherwise and hold the State liable.
Furthermore, it was inter alia observed to quantify compensation as per the age of deceased. The
relevant paragraphs of which are quoted herein below:-

"24. A death in custody is a slur on a civilised State and completely unacceptable.
Ideally, there should be no death, except due to natural causes, while in custody. Of course, the
natural causes are beyond the control of the State and convicts serving long sentences may also
have age-related problems which may lead to their death. But it is particularly distressing to note
the number of deaths of under-trial prisoners as the investigating agency uses third-degree methods
to get information from the arrested person rather than go out in the field and investigate the matter.
Oftentimes, the excesses indulged in by the State through its police personnel result in admissions,
which may be inaccurate, but which are made to stave off or delay the further torture. If police
brutalities and inhuman treatment of persons in custody have to be arrested, the compensation for
2 All. Prema Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1509
custodial death has to be pegged at a level where the State will bleed to make the payment; not
what the State is happy to pay off.

25. At any rate, there is no room to apply the strict liability theory when it comes to a
death of a person in the custody of the State. The State's liability in such regard is absolute and
unless it demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Court that the death was due to natural causes, the
Court may reasonably infer otherwise and hold the State liable. The State ought also to be liable for
the actions of its officers and employees. It is possible that in several cases exuberant officials
would go beyond the call of duty or the SOP in place. In such cases, the State will remain liable for
the acts and conduct of its officials, but the State will also be free to proceed against such officials
and even extract the compensation that it has to pay from such officials in accordance with law.
Though the classification indicated in the Haryana notification and as has been mindlessly adopted
by the State appears to be abhorrent and obnoxious, there should be some other form of
classification based on a precedent therefor in our jurisprudence. In respect of motor accident
claims, there is a classification of the quantum of compensation payable based on the age of the
victim. Accordingly, it is deemed fit and proper to classify the victims who have died in custody
into three categories, namely, below 30; between 30 and 45; and, above 45.

26. Since the judgment of this Court in Smti. Meena S. Marak has already established the
quantum, the sum of Rs. 15 lakh may be taken as the compensation payable for death in custody to
the next of kin of a person age below 30. For victims in the age-group of 30 to 45, the quantum of
compensation should be Rs. 12 lakh and for those above 45 years, it should be Rs. 10 lakh. There is
an element of subjectivity in arriving at such ballpark figures; however, when it comes to
assessment of damages or quantification of compensation, there is an element of guesstimation that
is always indulged in.'

11. Dealing with the first issue, it is pertinent to examine the panchnama prepared in
accordance with Section 174 CrPC (corresponding Section 194 BNSS), which was conducted in
the presence of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Circle Officer, Inspector and jail authorities on the date
of death itself at prison. It was recorded in the panchnama that the deceased had committed suicide
by hanging himself from the ventilator of toilet using a muffler.

12. Moreover, the post mortem report indicates the presence of ligature mark around the neck
and a superficial abrasion on the anterior aspect of mid of left lower leg. Furthemore, the inquest
report prepared in accordance with Section 176 CrPC (corresponding Section 196 BNSS) has also
been submitted, wherein after considering the statements of all the witnesses, it was concluded that
the deceased had committed suicide. As per the statements of doctor who conducted post mortem
examination on the body of the deceased, the injuries found on the body were minor in nature
which were not sufficient enough to have resulted in death of the deceased.

13. It is undisputed that the deceased was in the custody of the State and had committed
suicide. There may have been circumstances surrounding him which drove him to take such an
extreme step, resulting in a patently unnatural death. Ergo, the State is absolutely liable for the
unnatural death of the deceased, as an amplified duty is cast upon the State for the death of a
prisoner in custody of police without any exception. No State can shirk its duties and
1510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
responsibilities for providing better facilities to prisoners. Accordingly the case of custodial death
is made out in the present case.

14. Now adverting to the issue with regard to grant of compensation by the Writ Court, we
may refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar reported in
(1983) 4 SCC 141. While dealing with a case of illegal detention even after an acquittal in a trial,
the Court has categorically held that the kin of the deceased was entitled to compensation for the
illegal detention and rejected the stale and sterile objection of the State that the compensation can
be recovered by filing a suit for damages. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are delineated
below:

"9. It is true that Article 32 cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of rights
and obligations which can be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary processes of courts, civil
and criminal. A money claim has therefore to be agitated in and adjudicated upon in a suit
instituted in a Court of lowest grade competent to try it. But the important question for our
consideration is whether in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, this Court can pass an
order for the payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequential
upon the deprivation of a fundamental right. The instant case is illustrative of such cases. The
petitioner was detained illegally in the prison for over 14 years after his acquittal in a full-dressed
trial. He filed a habeas corpus petition in this Court for his release from illegal detention. He
obtained that relief, our finding being that his detention in the prison after his acquittal was wholly
unjustified. He contends that he is entitled to be compensated for his illegal detention and that we
ought to pass an appropriate order for the payment of compensation in this habeas corpus petition
itself.

10. We cannot resist this argument. We see no effective answer to it save the stale and
sterile objection that the petitioner may, if so advised, file a suit to recover damages from the State
Government. Happily, the State's counsel has not raised that objection. The petitioner could have
been relegated to the ordinary remedy of a suit if his claim to compensation was factually
controversial, in the sense that a civil court may or may not have upheld his claim. But we have no
doubt that if the petitioner files a suit to recover damages for his illegal detention, a decree for
damages would have to be passed in that suit, though it is not possible to predicate, in the absence
of evidence, the precise amount which would be decreed in his favour. In these circumstances, the
refusal of this Court to pass an order of compensation in favour of the petitioner will be doing mere
lip-service to his fundamental right to liberty which the State Government has so grossly violated.
Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its significant content if
the power of this Court were limited to passing orders of release from illegal detention. One of the
telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance
with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the payment of monetary
compensation. Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant infringements of fundamental rights
cannot be corrected by any other method open to the judiciary to adopt. The right to compensation
is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest
and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield. If civilisation is not to
perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well known to suffer mention, it is
necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true
2 All. Prema Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1511
bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the
petitioner's rights. It may have recourse against those officers.'

15. Moreover, in Nilabati Behera (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme has recognised compensation
for custodial deaths as public law remedy and held that in cases of violation of fundamental right
by state's instrumentalities or servants, Writ Court can direct the State to pay compensation to the
victim or his/her legal heir(s) by way of monetary amends. The relevant paragraphs of the
judgment are quoted herein below:-

"23.'The question now, is of the quantum of compensation. The deceased Suman Behera
was aged about 22 years and had a monthly income between Rs 1200 to Rs 1500. This is the
finding based on evidence recorded by the District Judge, and there is no reason to doubt its
correctness. In our opinion, a total amount of Rs 1,50,000 would be appropriate as compensation,
to be awarded to the petitioner in the present case. We may, however, observe that the award of
compensation in this proceeding would be taken into account for adjustment, in the event of any
other proceeding taken by the petitioner for recovery of compensation on the same ground, so that
the amount to this extent is not recovered by the petitioner twice over. Apart from the fact that such
an order is just, it is also in consonance with the statutory recognition of this principle of
adjustment provided in Section 357(5) CrPC and Section 141(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

24. Accordingly, we direct the respondent State of Orissa to pay the sum of Rs 1,50,000
to the petitioner and a further sum of Rs 10,000 as costs to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid
Committee. The mode of payment of Rs 1,50,000 to the petitioner would be, by making a term
deposit of that amount in a scheduled bank in the petitioner's name for a period of three years,
during which she would receive only the interest payable thereon, the principal amount being
payable to her on expiry of the term. The Collector of the District will take the necessary steps in
this behalf, and report compliance to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within three months.'

16. In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
extensively and in great detail dealt with the issue of custodial death and held as under:-

"9. On the issue of defining natural and unnatural deaths, the learned Amicus Curiae
drew our attention to the Guidelines on Investigating Deaths in Custody issued by the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). According to ICRC, 'death' is the irreversible cessation of all
vital functions, including brain activity. Death is 'natural' when it is caused solely by disease and/or
the aging process. It is 'unnatural' when its causes are external, such as intentional injury (homicide,
suicide), negligence or unintentional injury (death by accident). We have perused the guidelines
provided by ICRC and are of the view that these guidelines deserve consideration and circulation
by the Central Government and all the State Governments.

NHRC and suicide prevention

10.It has been pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae that a disproportionately large
number of unnatural deaths are attributable to suicides. In this regard, it has been brought to our
notice by the learned Amicus Curiae that in relation to suicides in prisons, the National Human
1512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rights Commission or NHRC has published a monograph sometime in December 2014 entitled
'Suicide in Prison ' Prevention Strategy and Implication from Human Rights and Legal Points of
View'. This monograph records that during the period 2007-2011, deaths in prisons on account of
suicide formed 71% of the total number of unnatural deaths. It was also pointed out that the
average suicide rate among the general public for this period is 11 (per 100,000) whereas the
average suicide rate in prison is 16.9 (per 100,000). In other words, the average suicide rate in
prisons is over 50% more than in normal conditions. The monograph refers to certain
communications issued by NHRC from time to time on the aspect of custodial deaths, but we will
refer to them in somewhat greater detail a little later.

***

12.'Detailing the characteristics of a prison environment that make suicides in prisons
more likely, NHRC monograph mentions the following:

1. Authoritarian environment

2. No apparent control over the future

3. Isolation from family, friends and community

4. The shame of incarceration

5. Dehumanising aspects of incarceration

6. Fears

7. Staff insensitivity to the arrest and incarceration phenomenon

8. Hostility and bullying by other inmates

9. Lack of adequate medical and psychological counselling and treatment facility

10. Delay in deciding the parole.

***

14.NHRC has suggested various protective factors or measures that could be employed to
reduce the number of suicides in prisons. Among them are visits and contact that the prisoner could
have with the family, constructive occupation in prison, instilling hopes and plans for the future and
support from staff.

15.NHRC also conducted a National Seminar on Prison Reforms on 15-4-2011. The
recommendations made in the National Seminar have also been indicated in the monograph as also
some actionable points for suicide prevention programmes. In its conclusion, NHRC has recorded
2 All. Prema Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1513
that the success of efforts to prevent suicides in prisons depends on the ability and willingness to
identify the vulnerability of each prisoner, provide necessary supervision and support and offer
alternative ways of coping and reducing emotional distress. It is noted that any proposed piecemeal
solution to the problem of suicides in prisons will not result in any long-term improvement.

***

16.What we have mentioned above is only a brief indication of the extent to which
NHRC has put in an effort to bring about a composite monograph and a detailed study on suicides
in prisons. In our view, this would certainly be useful to prison officials and staff in reducing, if not
eliminating suicides in prisons. The monograph prepared by NHRC, in our opinion, deserves to be
freely distributed amongst the staff and prisons all over the country since it is a document of
immense utility insofar as suicide prevention in prisons is concerned.

***

38.The need for an inquiry into every death in custody was also emphasised by the
learned Amicus Curiae, who submitted that there was discrepancy of data between deaths reported
in prisons as per NCRB and deaths reported in prisons as derived from the data available with
NHRC. It was submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae that this discrepancy needs to be reconciled
and adequate reasons must be provided for every death that takes place in a prison.

***

48.In addition to the above decisions and several others rendered by this Court, almost
every High Court in the country has, at one time or another, also granted compensation for the
unnatural death of a person in custody, whether an undertrial or a convict. A few such illustrations
may be noted:

(a)'Nina Rajan Pillai'v.'Union of India'[Nina Rajan Pillai'v.'Union of India, 2011 SCC
OnLine Del 2252 : (2011) 180 DLT 104]

48.1.'The husband of the petitioner died in judicial custody due to inadequate medical
treatment given by the jail authorities. The Lt. Governor of Delhi even appointed a Commission of
Inquiry headed by Justice Leila Seth, a former Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court to
inquire into the circumstances that led to the death of the petitioner's husband. The Delhi High
Court awarded compensation for the unnatural death in custody.

(b)Kewalbai'v.'State of Maharashtra'[Kewalbai'v.'State of Maharashtra, 2013 SCC
OnLine Bom 773 : (2013) 3 Bom CR (Cri) 601]

48.2.'The victim was shot dead by a constable while in custody. The Bombay High Court
awarded compensation for the unnatural death in custody.
1514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(c)Bheduki Buragohain'v.'State of Assam'[Bheduki Buragohain'v.'State of Assam, 2013
SCC OnLine Gau 429 : (2013) 6 Gau LR 517]

48.3.'The undertrial victim died in judicial custody under suspicious circumstances. The
post-mortem report indicated that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation and
ante-mortem injuries by blunt weapons. The Gauhati High Court awarded compensation for the
unnatural death in custody.

(d)Madhuben Adesara'v.'State of Gujarat'[Madhuben Adesara'v.'State of Gujarat, 2016
SCC OnLine Guj 1956]

48.4.'The deceased was brutally tortured by police officers while in custody and
succumbed to his injuries during treatment. The post-mortem report revealed that the victim had
multiple injury marks which were ante-mortem in nature. The Gujarat High Court awarded
compensation for the unnatural death in custody.

(e)'Banalata Dash'v.'State of Orissa'[Banalata Dash'v.'State of Orissa, AIR 2012 Ori 97]

48.5.'The deceased was found hanging from a tree with his hands behind his back, tied at
the wrist with a towel. Since the victim was in the custody of the prison authorities, compensation
was awarded by the Orissa High Court for the unnatural death in custody.

(f)'Amandeep'v.'State of Punjab'[Amandeep'v.'State of Punjab, 2012 SCC OnLine P&H
19844 : (2013) 169 PLR 191]

48.6.'The deceased was assaulted by a co-prisoner and succumbed to injuries in the
hospital. Due to the unnatural death in custody, the Punjab and Haryana High Court awarded
compensation to the next of kin of the deceased.

(g)'Tmt. Rohini Lingam'v.'State'[Tmt. Rohini Lingam'v.'State, 2008 SCC OnLine Mad
1249 : (2008) 5 MLJ 822]

48.7.'The victim was murdered by his enemies while in prison. Due to the unnatural death
in custody, the Madras High Court awarded compensation to his next of kin.

(h)'Sabu E.K.'v.'State of Kerala'[Sabu E.K.'v.'State of Kerala, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 22210 :
(2016) 4 KLJ 105]

48.8.'The victim was tortured in a police station and succumbed to his injuries. In view of
the unnatural death in custody the Kerala High Court awarded interim compensation to the next of
kin of the deceased until the criminal trial against the police officers concerned was concluded.

(i)'Ravindra Nath Awasthi'v.'State of U.P.'[Ravindra Nath Awasthi'v.'State of U.P., 2009
SCC OnLine All 337 : (2009) 2 AWC 2090]
2 All. Prema Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1515

48.9.'The victim was an advocate held guilty of contempt of court. While he was
undergoing his sentence, he was severely beaten up by the prison authorities and succumbed to his
injuries in hospital. Due to the unnatural death in custody, the Allahabad High Court directed
payment of compensation to the next of kin of the deceased.