N Sailo, J. - Heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, the learned Government Advocate, who appears for all the respondents.

1. By filing this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has claimed for adequate amount of compensation on account of the custodial death of her husband namely, Lalpiangliana, under public law or any other law applicable to the case.

2. Brief facts of the case may be narrated at the outset. The deceased Lalpiangliana was arrested by the police in connection with Vaivakawn P.S Case No. 135/2010 dated 18.06.2010 on account of his alleged involvement in commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He was arrested and remanded to Judicial Custody on 19.06.2010. He died at the Civil Hospital, Aizawl at 3:45 A.M on 23.06.2010 due to the injuries sustained by him while he was under Judicial Custody. The post-mortem report dated 28.07.2010 revealed that there were as many as 24 injuries in his body. The opinion of the Medical and Health Officer on the cause of his death was due to the cumulative effect of multiple injuries in his body with the contributory effect of organic pulmonary deceases. The injuries were produced by blunt force impact. Due to his death, an FIR was lodged by Mr. Rodingliana Chawngthu on 01.07.2010 and as a result, Vaivakawn P.S Case No. 150/2010 was registered on the same date under Section 304/34 IPC and investigation conducted. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet which was numbered as 56/2012 dated 29.05.2012 against 9 (nine) accused persons under different Sections of the IPC. However, to the utter surprised of the petitioner, Charge under Section 304 IPC was dropped against all the accused persons in spite of the fact that the deceased died as a result of cumulative effect of multiple injuries as was indicated in the post-mortem report. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 9 (nine) accused persons, accused Lalhmangaiha Sailo and Gnat Lalrinchhana have expired and consequently, there are 7 (seven) accused persons left who are currently facing trial before the Criminal Court.

3. Mr. Zoramchhana, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was married with the deceased on 26.11.1982 and out of their wedlock, they have 5 (five) issues i.e., 3 (three) sons and 2 (two) daughters and they have all attained the age of majority. By referring to the Certificate dated 04.04.2018 (Annexure-6 to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 06.04.2018), he submits that all the 5 (five) children of the petitioner have no objection on the relief claimed by the petitioner through the present writ petition. The learned counsel by referring to the additional affidavit submits that her husband, the deceased was taken to Judicial Custody on 19.06.2010 and thereafter on 21.06.2010, he was forwarded to the Civil Hospital, Aizawl. On being informed, the petitioner and her children went to the Civil Hospital to meet him. During such meeting, he told her that he was assaulted by the accused No. 2 Prem Nath while he was under custody of the police at Vaivakawn Police Station. He stated that he was taken out to Zohnuai, near the PWD site office, on a Bolero vehicle by the police personnels and on reaching the place, he was brutally assaulted by them. Thereafter, he was brought back to Vaivakawn Police Station and put inside the lock-up. The petitioner contends that when she visited her late husband in the hospital, she found him to be very weak and he was even unable to walk on his own. Therefore, her 2 (two) sons i.e., Ramfangzauva and Lalnunsanga stayed with him during night time to give him support and carry him as and when required. The petitioner also contends that her husband was handcuffed to the hospital bed despite the condition of her husband. The deceased, thereafter, passed away on 23.06.2010, due to the injuries sustained by him as was clearly revealed in the post-mortem examination report. After such examination, his funeral ceremony was performed on 23.06.2010.

4. Mr. Zoramchhana submits that there is no plausible explanation as to how the husband of the petitioner had received multiple injuries in his body apart from the contention of the petitioner that she was informed by the deceased that he was brutally assaulted by the police while he was in their custody. A perusal of the post-mortem report would clearly show the nature of the injury sustained by the deceased and in fact, there was as many as 24 injuries in various parts of his body which could not have been sustained by him accidentally. He, therefore, submits that adequate amount of compensation be awarded to the petitioner on account of the custodial death of her husband. In this connection, the learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Apex Court as well as this Court which are as follows:-

(i) D.K Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416

(ii) State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vs. Smt. Iqbal Begum, (2004) CriLJ 3092

(iii) Khumanthem Ongbi Pangabam Ningol Ibemhal Devi Vs. State of Manipur & Ors., (2006) Supp1 GauLT 265.

(iv) Basanti Kalita Vs. State of Assam & Ors., (2010) 4 GauLT 506.

5. Appearing for the State respondents Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents on 13.02.2018, submits that the petitioner has no right to claim for compensation on account of the death of Shri. Lalpiangliana, as he had already divorced her during his lifetime. In fact, in his statement recorded in connection with Vaivakawn P.S Case No. 135/2010 dated 18.06.2010, he stated that he divorced the petitioner and married Sunita Tamang sometime in the beginning of the year, 2010. She submits that the deceased was arrested by the police on 18.06.2010, when he himself surrendered and confessed before the Central Jail authorities that he had killed MB Rai, the father of his present wife Sunita Tamang. The deceased was remanded in police custody for 72 hours on 18.06.2010. In fact, he refused to behave properly inside the lock-up and he dismantled an iron rod used to reinforce the lock of the lock-up door. That by using the iron rod he prevented the police from entering the lock-up. It was only after the inmates over powered him that the iron rod could be snatched from him.

Therefore, on account of the scuffle, the deceased got bruised. That due to his abnormal and disturbing behaviour, he was forwarded for remand to Judicial Custody on 19.06.2010 since the Investigating Officer had completed necessary interrogation. He was then sent to Central Jail on the same date. The learned counsel further submits that it can be seen from the charge sheet that was submitted to the Court by the Case I.O that the deceased slipped and felled while he was inside the bath room at the Central Jail. As a result of his fall, some cut injury on his scalp and eyebrow was noticed. At the Civil Hospital, Aizawl on 21.06.2010, a C.T Scan was done upon him wherein the finding turned out to be normal. She also submits that in fact, the younger brother of the deceased is employed as a Jail Warder at the Central Jail. He continuously checked the medical condition of his brother and no complaint about the treatment given to the deceased was received from him. Thus, there is no ground on the part of the State respondents to pay monetary compensation to the petitioner.

6. I have heard the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record.

7. Although, the State respondents contend that the deceased after divorcing the petitioner married Sunita Tamang, it may be noticed that Sunita Tamang has made a declaration on 06.03.2018 that she is not the wife of the deceased before the Notary public and the same has been annexed by the petitioner in her affidavit-in-reply dated 08.03.2018. The deceased was arrested on 18.06.2010 and he succumbed to his injuries on 23.06.2010. On 18.06.2010 after being arrested, the deceased was remanded to Police Custody. He was under Judicial Custody from 19.06.2010 till he was admitted to Civil Hospital, Aizawl on 21.06.2010. He expired on 23.06.2010. After the Vaivakawn Police Station, Case No. 150/2010 under Section 304/34 IPC was registered on 01.07.2010, investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 29.05.2012. As per the charge sheet, as many as 9 (nine) police personnels were found to be involved in the commission of an offence under Section 330/323/193 & 34 IPC. The investigation revealed that when the deceased was taken to Civil Hospital on 21.06.2010, he was carefully examined by the doctors on duty and the following injuries were found on his body:-

(i) Swelling on left wrist, upper part of his right foot and also on the left side of his face.

(ii) Bruises on his back, buttocks and both sides of his thighs and lower abdomen.

(iii) Cut wound about the 2 cm long of his scalp.

(iv) Loosing incisor teeth.

8. The enquiry report further revealed that the 7 (seven) arrested police personnel and 2 (three) Prison staffs had criminal involvement in the case. The post-mortem conducted upon the deceased on 23.06.2010 revealed as many as 24 injuries in various parts of the body of the deceased and it was opined that the cause of his death was due to the cumulative effect of the multiple injuries with the contributory effect of organic pulmonary deceases. The injuries was caused by blunt force impact. From the multiple injuries found to have been sustained by the deceased, it can only be seen that some degree of torture was inflicted upon the deceased while he was in Police custody as well as under judicial custody. The Apex Court in the case of D.K Basu at paragraph No. 22 of its judgment has held as below:-

"Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilized society governed by the rule of law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 & 22 (1) of the Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected. We cannot wish away the problem. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. If the functionaries of the Government become law breakers, it is bound to breed contempt of law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself thereby leading to anarchanism. No civilized nation can permit that to happen. Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to life the moment a policeman arrests him Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest These questions touch the spinal cord of human rights jurisprudence. The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic "No". The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, under trials, detenus and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law."

Summing up, the Apex Court held that, 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 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 tortuous act committed by the functionaries of the State.

9. This Court in Basanti Kalita relying upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in D.K. Basu held that the Fundamental Rights of the deceased person was clearly infringed and therefore, compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs, Fifty Thousand) only was directed to be paid by the State to the mother of the deceased who had petitioned before this Court.

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances in the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Sections 21 & 22 (1) of the deceased has clearly been established. The post- mortem report which revealed multiple injuries in the person of the deceased clearly speak of infringement of his Fundamental Rights.

11. In that view of the matter, the compensation payable to the petitioner is quantified at Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs, Fifty Thousand) only. The said amount shall be deposited by the State on or before 18.06.2018 before the Registrar of this Court and the petitioner may thereafter, receive the amount after proper identification. The payment shall, however, not foreclose the opportunity of the petitioner to claim further amount by establishing the actual loss suffered by the family through an appropriate proceeding.

12. It is ordered accordingly.

13. A copy of this order be furnished to Mrs. Lindal L. Fambawl, the learned Government Advocate and also to the petitioner for communication and compliance.

14. The Writ Petition accordingly stands allowed.