Custodial Death shall raise a presumption of unnatural death when there’s nothing to show for ill health of the deceased

Daniyal Qureshi | Symbiosis Law School Pune | 29th March 2020

Konjengbam (O) Pishak Devi  v. State of Manipur Decided in 17.12.2019 The High Court of Manipur at Imphal

Facts 

The petitioner being the wife of the deceased has filed this writ petition before the High Court. The facts being that the petitioner’s son had married one Smt. Naorem Asha Devi in December 2013 who died due to consumption of poison on 28.3.2014. Thereafter FIR was registered in the police station and the petitioner, her son and the now deceased husband aged 46 was arrested by the police on 5.4.2014. 

The custody of the Husband and the son kept getting extended from time to time and ultimately the Husband suddenly died on 9-3.2015. Almost an year after remaining in custody. 

Upon conduction of the post mortem test of the deceased the doctors were unable to find the cause of death. There were no signs of poisoning, no injury marks upon the body, and moreover there were no signs to support a natural death due to cardiac arrest or some sort or organ failure of haemorrhage. Therefore, due to lack of knowledge the medical officer wrote down that natural death cannot be entirely ruled out from possibility.

The petitioner contended negligence on the part of the custodial authority and submitted failure to comply with the provisions of arrest also known as the D.K. Basu guidelines.   
The petitioner submitted the inaction of the authorities when she wrote to them aggrieved of the death of her husband and the financial burden of raising her family without resources upon her and requested financial assistance of some sort. The petitioner submits that there was absolute failure to comply with Provisions under the Cr.P.C. including Section 55A, and no health welfare or safety facilities were provided to the deceased. That the deceased was never presented before a medical officer for examination during his arrest. Also, on the day of the death of the deceased no doctor was present at the jail premises. That the absence of the doctor and the non-recording of the death of the deceased in the register was violative of section 13 and 15 of the Prisons Act 1894. 

On the other hand the respondents contention are nothing but mere narrative of the series of incidences and there complete reliance has been placed on the fact that medical officer wrote in the report that a possibility of a natural death cannot be ruled out. 

Issues 

• Whether, having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s husband died while in custody is not denied, the respondents had failed to safeguard the rights of the petitioner’s husband as guaranteed under the Constitution of India as well as the legal rights as prescribed in law?

•  If the issue (a) above, is answered in the affirmative, the further issue is as to whether the failure on the part of the respondents to follow and implement the various provisions of law and the directives issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would amount to their negligence?

•  If the issue (b) above, is answered in the affirmative, the issue is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if yes, what amount?

Judgement 

• The High Court examined the medical report and medical witness and drew the conclusion that at the time of the arrest the deceased was a perfectly healthy 46 year old man and that there were no further medical examinations of the deceased available which was a duty of the jail authorities to conduct medical examination. Furthermore, the High Court recorded that it is unfortunate that in this case the cause of death could not be ascertained by the medical officer therefore a possibility of natural death cannot be ruled out. However, at the same time the vice versa that there was no specific opinion of the medical officer to deduce a natural death was also valid. 
• The High Court records that from the date of the arrest till the date of death, the investigation was not complete. During this entire period no legal aid was provided to the now deceased for advice by the jail authorities, no charge sheet was filed as recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. 
• Therefore, the High Court concluded  that the negligence as regards an institution/a body, like the present one, manned by its staff/officials, is nothing but the failure on the part of its staff/officials to discharge their duties and functions effectively as prescribed in law. Health is one of the sectors/components which is to be taken care of by the staff/officials of the jail in respect of the jail inmates. From the aforesaid circumstances including the lapses/negligence on the part of the respondents, the death of the petitioner’s husband does not fall within the meaning of the expression “natural death” as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision^[1] and therefore, this Court has no option but to hold that the death of the petitioner’s husband cannot be said to be natural but unnatural due to the negligence on the part of the respondents.
• Having answered the first two issues in affirmative the High Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 6 lac to the petitioner. 

^[1] In re : Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons MANU/SC/1183/2017