The Allahabad High Court on Friday directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay a compensation of ₹10 lakh to the legal heirs of a minor, who died by suicide inside the Pilibhit district jail in 2024..A Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla opined that there may have been some "circumstances" that drove the minor to take such extreme step but the State was absolutely liable for his unnatural death inside inside the jail.No State can shirk its duties and responsibilities for providing better facilities to prisoners, the Court said while declaring the minor's suicide to be a case of custodial death. The Bench noted that the Supreme Court has categorically held that a suicide inside a prison would be an unnatural death for which liability would squarely fall upon the State."This Court finds that the death of the deceased occurred while in custody and control of the State authorities, and that the material placed on record unmistakably establishes a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," it held..The minor was facing rape charges in a 2016 case under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Protection of Children under Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. He had undergone imprisonment of about three years and ten months before he was granted bail in February 2022.However, he was arrested on February 7, 2024, after he failed to appear before the trial court. On February 20, 2024, he hanged himself inside the prison. A magisterial inquiry later confirmed the cause of death and observed that there was no information regarding any harassment or instigation by jail authorities.National Human Rights Commission in 2024 ordered a compensation of ₹3 lakh to the family of the minor. However, after the State failed to pay the amount, the minor's mother moved the High Court..It was alleged that the minor was subjected to torture by police in jail due to non-payment of illegal demands including a monthly payment of ₹4,500. However, the State denied the allegations and also said that minor had died by hanging himself. It was argued that there was no involvement of authorities in his death..However, the Court ruled that the State was absolutely liable for unnatural deaths inside prisons. "The explanations offered by the respondents is neither cogent nor sufficient to displace the presumption of the death of the petitioner’s son eventuated in prision. Accordingly, the onus which squarely lay upon the State to account for the circumstances leading to the death, has not been satisfactorily discharged. The contention of the State that the death was due to suicide and was not an unnatural death does not hold water as has been categorically demonstrated by the judgments as discussed above," the Bench said.The Court also expressed surprise that Indian law has no express mandate for 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," the Bench said.Thus, it directed the State government to frame guidelines for payment of compensation in custodial death cases, similar "to the multiplier method based on age, income and dependants as available under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.".The Court ordered the State to pay the compensation of ₹10 lakh to the minor's family within three weeks,.It also clarified that the direction shall be without prejudice to the right of the legal heirs to pursue appropriate civil or criminal proceedings against the officials concerned..Advocates Rama Kant Dixit and Uday Kumar represented the petitioner..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
