Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Suresh Chandra Gautam and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Suresh Chandra Gautam and anr. vs State of U.P. and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Apr 03, 2001
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/487481

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Cri. Misc. Writ Petn. No. 1909 of 2001
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 168; [S.B. Sinha & H.S. Bedi, JJ ] Determination of compensation Meaning of income of victim Held, The term income has different connotations for different purposes. A court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question n...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Article 21

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Suresh Chandra Gautam and anr.

Advocate D.V. Singh, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Advocate A.G.A.

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Article 21
Cases Referred
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration
Reported In
2001CriLJ2864

Excerpt

.....regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms. section 168 uses the word just compensation which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. the amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted. - it seems that most of our jails in our country are jungles where the security people often behave like animals in mal-treating the prisoners instead of following the decision of the supreme court......in jail and that was cause of his death. this incident happened in district jail, bareilly, copy of the post mortem report which is annexed as annexure 3 to this writ petition corroborates the version in the f.i.r. that chandra prakash has been mercilessly beaten in prison and the cause of death given in the post mortem report was coma and asphyxia as a result of ante mortem injuries.4. the supreme court in the case of sunil batra v. delhi administration air 1978 sc 1675 has held that a person in jail does not lose his fundamental rights under article 21 of the constitution which requires a person to be treated with dignity. it seems that most of our jails in our country are jungles where the security people often behave like animals in mal-treating the prisoners instead of following the decision of the supreme court. the present case is a typical illustration what has been happening in jails in this country, particularly in uttar pradesh. in this view of the matter we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. a personal of the f.i.r. shows that a prima facie case is made out and hence we are not inclined to stay the proceedings and investigation of the case. however, the observations made in this judgment will not influence the court concerned in deciding with the bail application of the petitioners or the trial.5. let a copy of this order be sent to the director general of jails. uttar pradesh, lucknow who will circulate it to all jail authorities in the state with a severe warning that if any0, such further instance comes to the knowledge of the court the persons responsible will be taken to severe task.6. with these observations the writ petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. Heard counsel for the petitioners.

2. This case furnishes a typical instance of what is happening in the jails in this country. The F.I.R. which has been challenged in this writ, petition reads as follows :-

udy rgjhj fgUnh oknh

lsok esa Jheku Fkkuk/;{kdksrokyh cjsyh fuosnu bl izdkj gS fd fnukad 23&5&2000 fnu eaxyokj dksesjk iq= pUnz izdk'k lu vkQ iq= Jh jke xksiky fuoklh ljkgnkuk Fkkuk ckjknjh mezyxHkx 24 o'kZ ldq'ky vnkyr esa gkftj gqvk Fkk ftldks mlh fnu vnkyr us tsyHkst fn;k Fkk A vkt fnukad 28&5&2000 fnu jfookj dks lqcg djhc ukS nl ctsesjs ?kj Fkkuk ckjknjh ls nks iqfyl okys vk;s vkSj cryk;k fd vkidk iq= tks tsyesa Fkk mldh e`R;q gks x;h gS A mldk 'ko ftyk vLirky 'ko x`g esa j[kk gS A vkiyksx tkdj 'ko ys ysa ge yksx tc ftyk vLirky igqps rks esjk iq= 'ko x`g esarkys esa cUn Fkk dqN le; ckn jkf= eftLVsV lkgc 'ko x`g dk rkyk [kqyokdkj 'kockgj fydkyk A eSus ns[kk fd esjs iq= ds ukd o dku esa [kwuHkjk iMk Fkk A mldsflj esa dbZ txg xqe pksVksa ds fu'kku Fks A mldh ,d vk[k o nksuksa gkFk esacxy o ilyh ij t[e o [kwu tek gqvk Fkk A esjs iq= dks tsy esa cMh csjgeh ls ekjkihVk x;k gS A blh dkj.k esjs iq= dh e`R;q gq;h gS A ekStwnk le; esa tks Hkh tsyvf/kdkjh ogk ekStwn gSaa og esjs iq= ds gR;kjs gSaa A vkils fuosnu gS fd esjhfjiks VZ fy[kdj nks'kh O;fDr;ksa ds f[kykQ dkuwuh dk;Zokgh dh tkos A vkidhegku ik gksxh A ys[kd egkohj izlkn lgnkuk Fkkuk ckjknjh cjsyh A izkFkhZ fu-vaxwBk jke I;kjh iRuh Jh jke xksiky jkgnkuk Fkkuk ckjknjh cjsyh A fnukad28&5&2000 uksV %& eSa ,p-,e- nsoh n;ky izekf.kr djrk gwW fd rgjhj dhudy fpd gktk dh iqLr ij 'kCn o 'kCn vafdr dh x;h gS rgjhj esa layXu ewy ,Q- vkbZ-vkj- dh tkrh gS A

3. A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that the son of the first informant Chandra Prakash was in jail. On 28-5-2000 two police people came to the first informant and told her that her son had died in jail. On visiting the mortuary it was found that blood was coming out of the nose and ear of the corpse of Chandra Prakash. There were several signs of injuries on his head. There were also injuries on one eye and both hands and ribs of Chandra Prakash were full of blood. It appears that Chandra Prakash has been mercilessly beaten in jail and that was cause of his death. This incident happened in District Jail, Bareilly, copy of the post mortem report which is annexed as Annexure 3 to this writ petition corroborates the version in the F.I.R. that Chandra Prakash has been mercilessly beaten in prison and the cause of death given in the post mortem report was coma and asphyxia as a result of ante mortem injuries.

4. The Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675 has held that a person in jail does not lose his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution which requires a person to be treated with dignity. It seems that most of our jails in our country are jungles where the security people often behave like animals in mal-treating the prisoners instead of following the decision of the Supreme Court. The present case is a typical illustration what has been happening in jails in this country, particularly in Uttar Pradesh. In this view of the matter we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. A personal of the F.I.R. shows that a prima facie case is made out and hence we are not inclined to stay the proceedings and investigation of the case. However, the observations made in this judgment will not influence the Court concerned in deciding with the bail application of the petitioners or the trial.

5. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Jails. Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow who will circulate it to all Jail Authorities in the State with a severe warning that if any0, such further instance comes to the knowledge of the Court the persons responsible will be taken to severe task.

6. With these observations the writ petition is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial