{"id":1050,"date":"2020-04-23T10:31:06","date_gmt":"2020-04-23T10:31:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?p=1050"},"modified":"2021-01-17T11:18:50","modified_gmt":"2021-01-17T11:18:50","slug":"custodial-death-shall-raise-a-presumption-of-unnatural-death-when-theres-nothing-to-show-for-ill-health-of-the-deceased","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/custodial-death-shall-raise-a-presumption-of-unnatural-death-when-theres-nothing-to-show-for-ill-health-of-the-deceased\/","title":{"rendered":"Custodial Death shall raise a presumption of unnatural death when there\u2019s nothing to show for ill health of the deceased"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Daniyal Qureshi | Symbiosis Law School Pune | 29th March 2020<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Konjengbam (O) Pishak Devi\u00a0 v.<\/strong> State of Manipur Decided in 17.12.2019 The High Court of Manipur at Imphal<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Facts\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The petitioner being the wife of the deceased has filed this writ petition before the High Court. The facts being that the petitioner\u2019s 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
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.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Issues\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n