Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1585/2018
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.6488/2016)
AMOL VITTHALRAO KADU Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s))
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Leave granted.
Criminal Writ Petition No.39/2015 was preferred by
parents and daughter of one Pravin alleging that said Pravin
met with unnatural death while he was in police lock-up,
Vajirabad Police Station, Nanded.
After considering the relevant documents, the High Court
directed the State to make over a sum of Rs.7 lakhs by way of
compensation to the writ petitioners. The compensation has
been made over by the State to the writ petitioners. The High
Court also directed that said amount be recovered from the
Signature Not Verified
Investigating Officer-In-charge as under:
Digitally signed by
BALA PARVATHI
Date: 2018.12.12
10:33:23 IST
Reason:
“6. The amount ordered shall be recovered
from the Investigating Officer/in-charge at
the relevant time in Crime No.104 of 2013,
Vimantal Police Station, Nanded. The State
2
shall also pay costs of this petition to the
petitioners.”
The Investigating Officer-In-Charge has appealed against
the aforementioned direction contending, inter alia that
unless and until the liability or responsibility is fixed, the
appellant ought not to have been directed to make over the
payment.
The law on the point has been summarized by this Court in
1
D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal :-
“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,
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.
The 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
1 (1997) 1 SCC 416
3
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.”
2
In a case dealing with default on part of the officials
in depositing the amount in terms of the Land Acquisition Act,
Swatanter Kumar, J. had observed:
“( iv ) In this case, the claimants would be
entitled to the costs of Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees
one lakh only) which shall be deposited at
the first instance by the State Government
of Uttar Pradesh and then would be recovered
from the salaries of the defaulting/erring
officers/officials in accordance with law.
The inquiry shall be completed within a
period of six months from today and a report
shall be submitted to the Secretary General
of this Court on the administrative side
immediately thereafter.”
Learned counsel for the State accepts that in connection
with the death of the said Pravin, proceedings are pending in
which the question of liability will be gone into and
determined.
We therefore modify the aforesaid direction of the High
Court and state that as and when the liability for the crime
in question is fastened, the State shall be at liberty to
2 Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2011)9 SCC 354
4
recover the amount of compensation from the concerned erring
officials.
The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
…………………….……………………………….J.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT]
………………………………………………………J.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY]
New Delhi,
December 10,2018.
5
ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 6488/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-07-2016
in CRLWP No. 39/2015 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Bombay At Aurangabad)
AMOL VITTHALRAO KADU Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s))
Date : 10-12-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR
Mr. Lokesh K. Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Debashish Mukherjee, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR
Ms. Suvarna Ganu, Adv.
Mr. Anoop Kandari, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed
order.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed
of.
(INDU MARWAH) (SUMAN JAIN)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file)