Custodial death with unexplained injuries: Rajasthan High Court orders ₹25 lakh compensation, FIR and urgent jail reforms

Rooparam, the petitioner’s husband and an undertrial prisoner, had been lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur since 20 August 2023. On 2 July 2025, he allegedly became unwell in the barrack, was taken to the jail dispensary and thereafter referred to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, where he was declared brought dead.

The petitioner alleged custodial violence and sought registration of an FIR, an independent investigation and compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The post-mortem report recorded multiple ante-mortem injuries, including incised wounds caused by a sharp-edged weapon and other injuries caused by blunt force, sustained within six hours before death.

A judicial inquiry under Section 196(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 found that the death was unnatural and attributable to the combined effect of injuries to the head and neck, rather than natural cardiac causes.

The Court’s examination of CCTV footage further disclosed that co-prisoners attempted to revive Rooparam for approximately half an hour before medical personnel arrived; there were inadequate CCTV facilities, insufficient lavatories and drinking-water arrangements, and no senior jail official was seen supervising the emergency.

Despite the suspicious circumstances and the petitioner’s complaints, no FIR had initially been registered.

Whether the circumstances of Rooparam’s death in judicial custody, including the ante-mortem injuries and delayed medical assistance, disclosed a violation of his fundamental right to life under Article 21 and made the State constitutionally liable

Whether the State police were required to register an FIR and conduct a fair, effective and independent criminal investigation into the unexplained injuries and death

Whether the High Court could award compensation under Article 226 notwithstanding that individual criminal responsibility had not yet been determined

Whether systemic deficiencies in medical care, CCTV surveillance, sanitation, drinking water and custodial supervision required continuing judicial directions

Article 21 protects every person in custody, including prisoners and undertrials; imprisonment curtails liberty but does not suspend the right to life, dignity or humane treatment.

Under Article 226, a constitutional court may award public-law compensation for a proven or prima facie established violation of fundamental rights, independently of civil damages, criminal prosecution or departmental proceedings, as recognised in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 establishes safeguards against custodial abuse and reinforces the State’s obligation to protect persons in custody.

In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2016) 3 SCC 700 recognises prisoners’ entitlement to dignity, adequate medical care, sanitation, staffing and humane prison conditions.

Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 requires registration of an FIR where information discloses a cognizable offence.

The State bears institutional and vicarious responsibility for failures of custodial care, including inadequate supervision, delayed medical intervention and deficient prison infrastructure.

The Court distinguished between criminal culpability and constitutional accountability. It did not finally determine whether Rooparam was murdered or identify the person responsible; those questions were left to criminal investigation.

Nevertheless, the undisputed custody, unexplained ante-mortem injuries, medical evidence inconsistent with a purely natural death, and the absence of timely medical assistance established circumstances warranting constitutional scrutiny.

The CCTV footage showed that co-inmates, rather than trained medical personnel, attempted resuscitation for nearly half an hour, while the jail lacked adequate surveillance and effective custodial supervision.

Applying Article 21 and the constitutional-tort principles in Nilabati Behera and D.K. Basu, the Court held that the State could not avoid public-law responsibility merely because the precise cause and individual criminal liability remained unresolved.

The failure to register an FIR despite circumstances indicating a cognizable offence further justified a direction for prompt investigation.

Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, it directed the State to pay ₹25,00,000 as constitutional compensation to the petitioner and the deceased’s family within 60 days.

The Director General of Police was directed to ensure registration of an FIR within 48 hours and entrust the investigation to an officer not below the rank of RPS.

The Court further directed 24×7 medical assistance, improved CCTV surveillance, additional lavatories and potable-water facilities, adequate emergency equipment including ECG facilities, and consideration of dedicated medical staff in jails.

The matter was retained for continuing supervision, with compliance reports and the presence of senior jail and health officials required after 60 days; it was listed for compliance on 30 October 2026.