The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3778 of 2010 Duhita Behera and others …. Petitioners Mr. A. S. Nandy, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. P. Das, ASC CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE A. K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 03.03.2022 Order No. 07. 1. Alleging negligence of the Opposite Parties in causing the death of the husband of Petitioner No.1 and the father of Petitioners 2 to 5, the present petition has been filed seeking compensation in the sum of Rs.20 lakhs. 2. The background facts are that the husband of Petitioner No.1 was taken into custody on 6th September, 2007 at the Ranipathar protected forest for allegedly committing an offence punishable under Section 27(3) of the Orissa Forest Act. He was remanded to judicial custody in case 2(b) C.C. No. 8 of 2007 by the S.D.J.M., Phulbani on the same day and was lodged in the Phulbani Sub-Jail. 3. It is stated that despite being granted bail by an order dated 7th September, 2007, the husband of Petitioner No.1 could not furnish a personal recognizance bond and accordingly remained Page 1 of 5 in jail custody. It is stated that on 27th October, 2007 while in jail he had breakfast of Upma at around 8.45 am. Soon thereafter, he complained of uneasiness and pain. He was taken to the Jail Hospital and thereafter to District Headquarters Hospital (DHH) where, according to the Opposite Parties, while undergoing treatment, he expired. 4. In the petition, it is stated that the death of the husband of the Petitioner No.1 was due to sheer negligence and that the medical record showed he was already brought dead at the District Hospital. It is accordingly contended that the husband of Petitioner No.1 died while in jail custody. The Post-Mortem Reports (PMR) and the medical records obtained have been enclosed to the petition. 5. In response to the notice issued in the petition, it is stated by the Opposite Parties that while in jail custody on 27th October, 2007, the husband of Petitioner No.1 was affected by fits at around 9.20 AM and became unconscious. As per the advice of the Jail Medical Officer, District Jail, Phulbani, he was shifted to the DHH), Phulbani and while receiving treatment there, he was declared dead. The intimation regarding his death was sent to his relatives through the staff of the jail. An inquest was conducted in the presence of the Magistrate, OIC. Videography was done of both the events. The conclusion was that nobody was responsible for the death, which occurred due to severe epilepsy. A magisterial enquiry was also conducted by the Nizarat Officer- cum-Executive Magistrate, Phulbani, who submitted his report Page 2 of 5 on 27th October, 2007 to the Collector and District Magistrate after recording the statements of the jailer and some of the other prisoners. The stand of the Opposite Parties is that all possible and prompt steps were taken for saving the life of the undertrial prisoner and that no negligence could be attributed to the Opposite Parties. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners took the Court in some detail through the documents on record including the PMR. He sought to submit that there is a contradiction in the version of the Opposite Parties. On the one hand it is stated that the deceased developed unease while in jail soon after consuming ‘upma’ at around 8.45 am, whereas the PMR indicated that his bladder was empty. 7. A careful perusal of the PMR reveals that in the column titled ‘stomach and its contents’, it is shown to contain semi-solid food particles, which actually corroborates the version of the Opposite Parties of the deceased having consumed upma soon before his death. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners then referred to the statements of the inmates made during the Inquest, which according to him reveal that prompt treatment was not afforded to the husband of the Petitioner No.1. A perusal of the Inquest Report reveals that after he had taken upma at 8.45 am and consumed water, the deceased went to the Tulsi Platform and sat among some of his inmates holding his knees with his fingers Page 3 of 5 clamped against the knees. While he basked in the sun for 5 minutes “the inmates found suddenly his fingers got separated from the knee and he fell backward and lost his sense, some of the inmates gave him some iron piece in his hand to catch hold up so that Dhusasan shall gain sense. But Dhusasan did not gain sense.” The inmates then intimated the Zamadar, who then intimated the jail doctor. He was ordered to be taken to the District Jail Hospital where he administered an injection at 9.10 am. He was then referred to the DHH, Phulbani. There the doctor treated him first in the outdoor ward and then admitted him as an indoor patient in Ward No.1, where the doctor declared him dead. 9. The above narration does not indicate that there was undue delay in the jail staff attending to the deceased either in the jail or in the jail hospital. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioners then referred to the record of the DHH where the endorsement was “autopsy required as UTP received dead.” There is another endorsement which reads: “epilepsy with unconsciousness.” The time of admission is shown as 9.45 AM and the time of death as 10 AM. The entries in this document by itself do not lead to the inference that the deceased had died while still in the jail. It is not possible for the Court, in the absence of any independent expert medical opinion, to conclude from the entries in the medical records maintained contemporaneously that the death of the deceased occurred due to negligence. The present petition itself was filed Page 4 of 5 more than 3 years after the death of the deceased and during this period, no attempt has been made to have the records examined by any independent expert. Usually, in cases of this kind, an independent enquiry to establish the basic facts would lay the foundation for the claim for compensation. 11. With the basic facts being in dispute in the present case and the medical records not demonstrating prima facie any negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Court is not inclined to accept the prayer in the present petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice Judge M. Panda (A. K. Mohapatra ) Page 5 of 5