High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 3600/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI HON’BLE DR. (MRS.) JUSTICE INDIRA SHAH Judgment and Order {oral} (Ansari, J)
Legal Reasoning
We have heard Mr. PK Deka, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Ms. S Sarma, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents. The case of the petitioner may, in brief, be described as under: 2. (i) The petitioner, namely, Smti Sabita Ree, is widow of Late Dakhina Ree, resid ent of Meruya of Silchar, in the district of Cachar, who was a daily wage earner . On 25-03-2001, while the petitioner was working at his house, he was hit by a bullet on his chest, the bullet having hit his chest, when the personnel of 6th Assam Police Battalion were involved in target practice by using firearms. On th e death of her husband, the petitioner lodged a written Ejahar, on 27-03-2001, a t Gungur police Outpost. Having made, in this regard, GD Entry No. 518, dated 28 -03-2001, the In-charge, Gungur Outpost forwarded the said Ejahar to Silchar Pol ice Station, where Silchar Police Station Case No. 411 of 2001 was registered, u nder Section 304A IPC, treating the said Ejahar as First Information Report. (ii) During the course of investigation, the police visited the place of occurre nce, held inquest over the said dead body, prepared inquest report and, on compl etion of investigation, submitted a report under Section 173(2)(i) Cr.P.C. (here inafter referred to as, (cid:28)final report’) to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Cachar, Silchar, wherein it was stated, inter alia, thus: The firing range, in the present case, is located on a Hillock, which has a height of about 60 yards , and while firing practice of small arms was in progress by 6th Assam Police pe rsonnel, a bullet, which strayed away from the target, accidently happened to hi t the petitioner’s husband and that there was no rashness or negligence, on the part of those, who were involved in target practice or who had organized the tar get practice. The police, accordingly, sought for a direction closing the case. (iii) By order, dated 08-08-2011, passed in GR Case No. 852 of 2001 (Correspondi ng to Silchar Police Station Case No. 411 of 2001), the learned Chief Judicial M agistrate, Cachar, Silchar, accepted the final report and closed the case. (iv) Before the final report aforementioned was submitted and the same was accep ted as mentioned above, the petitioner, with the help of this writ application m ade under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleged that her husband was hit by bullet and died, because of negligence, on the part of the police person nel, involved in a target practice. The petitioner, therefore, sought for direct ion to be issued to the respondents/authorities concerned to investigate the cas e properly so as to bring to book the erring officials and to direct the respond ent to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the loss of life of the pe titioner’s husband, who was the sole bread-earner of his family, the mental agon y suffered by the family members of the said deceased and the medical expenses i ncurred by them for treatment of the said deceased. 3. The respondents have resisted the writ petition by filing an affidavit-i n-opposition, wherein they have contended to the effect, inter alia, that the ca se has been properly investigated and there has been no foul play in submitting the final report. 4. Before proceeding further, what needs to be pointed out is that this wri t petition, as already indicated above, was filed before filing of the final rep ort and acceptance thereof by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Sil char. 5. Notwithstanding the fact that the final report has been accepted, what n eeds to be noted is that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had not, before a ccepting the final report, given any notice to the petitioner, though she was th e informant and also the aggrieved person. In such circumstances, the decision t o accept the final report, in the light of the decision in Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah & others, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 614, is wholly illeg al and this is an aspect, which calls for appropriate directions to be issued by this Court. Assuming, for a moment, that the acceptance of the final report remains 6. undisturbed, what needs to be borne in mind is that the standard of proof, requi red in order to prove a charge, in a criminal trial, is different from the stand ard of proof, which is demanded in a civil suit or civil proceeding. While a cha rge, in a criminal trial, is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, a ci vil suit or civil proceeding has to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence. 7. In the case at hand, we notice that at paragraphs 6 and 10 of her writ p etition, the petitioner has clearly alleged negligence on the part of those, who were involved in the target practice; but the allegations of negligence, so mad e, were never denied, disputed or traversed by the respondents. 8. Situated thus, one cannot escape, in a proceeding under Article 226, fr om the conclusion that negligence, on the part of those, who were involved in ta rget practice, and/or responsible for conducting of target practice, is an admit ted fact. 9. Necessarily, therefore, this Court has to hold, and we do hold, in the l ight of the admission made by the respondents themselves, that the petitioner’s husband died as a result of negligence on the part of those, who were involved i n the target practice. This finding has, however, been rendered in the context o f the claim for compensation, which the petitioner has made, and shall not be tr eated, in future, as a conclusion derived by this Court so far as the criminal c ase, registered against the police personnel, is concerned. 10. Considering the fact that the petitioner’s husband lost his life due to sheer negligence of those, who were involved in target practice as mentioned abo ve, it is not difficult to conclude, and we do conclude, that the State Governme nt, being the employer, in the present case, is responsible for the tortious act s of its employees. 11. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we have no he sitation in holding that as the petitioner’s husband died due to sheer negligenc e of the State Government employees, the State Government is liable to pay compe nsation appropriate to the facts of the present case. The State Government is no t liable to pay this compensation merely on the principle of tort, but also on t he principle of violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner’s husband inasmuch as Article 21 guarantees to every person, be he a citizen or not, of no t being deprived of his life and liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. 12. Since the petitioner’s husband was a daily wage earner and even if we as sume that he used to earn about Rs.100/- per day, it logically follows that he, having worked, on average, for about three weeks a month, would have been earnin g more than Rs. 2,000/- per month and since the petitioner’s husband died, as th e post mortem report reveals, at the age of 33 years, which again is not in disp ute, a multiplier of 15 would be a reasonable multiplier and if this multiplier is used, the petitioner is entitled to receive more than that sum of Rs. 5,00,00 0/-, which the petitioner has claimed as compensation. 13. In the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, we do not find that the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, as compensation, is either unreasonable or untenable in law. 14. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest o f justice, we hereby direct the Registry of this Principal Seat to register a ’r evision suo motu’ against the order, dated 08.08.2011, passed by the learned Chi ef Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, accepting the final report in Silchar P olice Station Case No. 411 of 2001 and list the case, before appropriate Bench, for taking a decision if the revision, against the acceptance of the said final order without giving any notice to the informant, who is the aggrieved person to o, needs to be admitted, heard and decided. 15. We also direct that the State respondents, particularly, respondent No. 1 shall pay, within a period of three months from today, a sum or Rs. 5,00,000/- , as compensation, to the petitioner. 16. We further direct that the Commandant, 6th Assam Police Battalion, shall take all necessary steps to ensure that no unfortunate incident, as the one at hand, in the neighborhood of the place of target practice, takes place, in futur e, as and when the personnel of the 6th Assam Battalion resort to target practic e by firing arms, small or big. Since the petitioner has a minor daughter, 50% of the compensation, whic 17. h we have hereby directed to be paid to the petitioner, be kept in fixed deposit , in any nationalized bank, and be operated by the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar. 18. nd disposed of. 19. 20.
Decision
No order as to costs. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned Government Advocate. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall sta