ORDER
V. Gopala Gowda, J.
1. Originally this Writ Petition was filed by the first petitioner, who is the mother of late Kamalakar, seeking a direction to the first respondent State of Karnataka to award compensation of rupees five lakhs towards the death of her son while in police lock-up. Subsequently, the 2nd petitioner, who is the younger brother of the deceased has been impleaded.
2. It is alleged that the deceased Kamalakar dies in the Station Bazaar Police Station at Gulbarga while in lock-up on 19-6-1992 at the behest of one B.N. Palil. It is stated that the said B.N. Patil had promised to secure a job to the deceased and received Rs. 25,000/-but failed to secure the job. When Kamalakar demanded return of money, B.N. Patil, with a view to take revenge, filed a false complaint, on the basis of which a false case was registered against the deceased. In that connection, Kamalakar was shifted from one station to another and finally he was illegally detained in Bazaar Police Station from 16-5-1992 to 19-6-1992. Thereafter, his where-about were not known. On the basis of the complaint lodged, investigation was commenced but in view of enormous delay, the matter was entrusted to C.O.D. After investigation, charge sheet was filed in Crime No. 138/92 for the offences under Sections 344, 365, 368, 506, 302 read with 120(B) I.P.C and the matter is pending. This petition is filed seeking compensation alleging that Kamalakar dead on account of torture and harassment while in police custody.
3. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents the facts as such are not denied or disputed. It is stated that charge-sheet has been filed against 22 persons and out of whom 4 persons have been discharged either by the Sessions Court or High Court and remaining 18 persons are facing the trial. It is stated that B.N. Patil is the first accused in the case and it is made clear that he is responsible for the death of the deceased in collusion with the police officers. It is stated that until the Sessions Court gives its findings as to the exact cause and reason for the death of Kamalakar; it is not possible to pay compensation. So, respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court directed the learned High Court Govt. Pleader to produce the report of 3rd respondent C.O.D and to submit as to whether any disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the accused police personnel in the pending Sessions case. Accordingly, the report of the C.O.D and the orders of discharge of some of the accused are produced along with a memo.
5.1 have perused the report submitted by Ashok Kumar Pande, the I.P.S officer who conducted the enquiry pertaining to the death of Kamalakar. After a detailed narration of facts leading to the death of Kamalakar, at page 9 of the report the officer has summarised the factors in the following manner:-
'1) Kamalakara, S/o Madhukara Patil, r/o.Banne Sirur was detained illegally by A.S.I. Veerabhadrappa at Chowk P.S from 16-5-92 - 10.30 p.m (Appxo) upto 11-6-92 - 6 a.m (appxo) at the instance of B.N. Patil and M.N. Patil (brothers) of Banne Sirur village.
2) Kamalakar S/o. late Madhukar Patil R/o Bennisirur village escaped from illegal custody of ASI Veerbhadrappa on 11-6-92 at 6.15 a.m. (approx) upto 15-6-92 till 10.30 a.m. approximately.
3) ASI Veerabhadrappa after securing Kamalakara on 15-6-92 at approximately 10.30 a.m. has personally handed over Kamalakara to the custody of Prakash Murgod, PSI Station Bazar P.S. at about 11.45 a.m. on 15-6-92.
4) Kamalakara is illegally detained in station bazar P.S. lock up since 15-6-92 at 11.45 a.m. upto 18-6-92.
5) The whereabouts of Kamalakara is not known since 19-6-92 up till now.'
IN MY OPINION THUS:
'1) ASI Veerabhadrappa of Chowk P.S. is guilty of illegal detention of Kamalakar S/o. late Madhukar Patil r/o Banne Sirur Village, Aland Taluk, District Gulbarga since 16-5-92.
2) Kamalakara was handed over to PSI Station Bazar Prakash Murgod by ASI Veerabhadrappa of Chowk P.S. at the instance of Prakash Murgod on 15-6-92. Since 19-6-92 there whereabouts of Kamalakara S/o. late Madhukar Patil r/o Benne Sirur village is not known to anybody.
It is clear from the above that deceased Kamalakar was illegally detained by A.S.I. Veerabhadrappa at the instance of B.N. Patil from 16-5-1992 to 19-6-1992 at Chowk Police Station and from 19-6-1992 the where-about of Kamalakara was not known. It is crystal clear that Veerabhadrappa, A.S.I., took the law into his own hands and kept Kamalakar in illegal detention for more than a month without producing him before the concerned Court. He was hand-in-glove with B.N. Patil and his brother M.N. Patil. Conspiracy is crystal clear in the case. There is blatant violation of human rights of deceased Kamalakar by the said police officer and his staff who co-operated with him. Their illegal and unlawful acts has taken away the bread-earner of petitioners. The first petitioner has been deprived of her eldest son Kamalakar. The attrocious attitude of the police personnel is highly shocking and pricks the conscious of this Court. Their high-handedness and excessive powers and crossing of their limits in the discharge of duties is highly deplorable.
6. In view of the decisions on similar cases SOWBHAGYA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, COMMON CAUSES CASE, tortious liability has to be fixed on the State for the wrongs committed by its officers. Keeping in view the said decisions, this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has awarded the compensation in this case.
7. Having regard to the age of the first petitioner and the affidavit filed by the first petitioner regarding her age and that she is unemployed and having regard to the age of the deceased Kamalakar at the time of his death in police lock-up and his ghastly death and the mental agony undergone by the petitioners while the deceased was illegally detained in police custody for more than a month, in my view, award of compensation of rupees two lakhs with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of illegal detention of deceased Kamalakar would meet the ends of justice; Awarding compensation will not bring back the deceased to the petitioners but in order to see that the petitioners get solace after a lapse of about a decade, this Court came to this conclusion.
8. The second petitioner being the brother, of the deceased, he is not entitled to the compensation but only the first petitioner is entitled to the same.
9. For the reasons stated supra, this Writ Petition is partly allowed directing the first respondent to pay the aforesaid compensation to the first petitioner. The interest ordered to be paid shall be paid to the first petitioner by crossed cheque. In so far as the compensation amount of rupees two lakhs is concerned, the same shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of the first petitioner in any Nationalised Bank of her choice and the Fixed Deposit Receipt shall be handed over to her. The interest earned thereon shall be paid quarterly to her for maintenance. The aforesaid payments shall be paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. The first respondent is at liberty to recover the compensation amount and interest paid from the accused persons by fixing proportionate liability. Further, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the accused police personnel in the Sessions Case within four weeks from the aforesaid date and a report shall be submitted in that regard to the Registry of this Court within six weeks.
11. The Sessions Court before whom the case relating to the death of Kamalakar is pending shall dispose of the case independently without reference to the findings recorded in this order and the amount of compensation ordered.
12. Before parting with the case, an observation is made that the observations made in this order and the direction issued to the State Government to recover the compensation amount from the accused police personnel and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them, shall be a lesson and warning to the other police officers to act in accordance with law without exceeding their powers while discharging the duties.