Allahabad High Court Orders ₹10 Lakh Compensation in Custodial Death Case

The Allahabad High Court has held that a suicide inside a prison cell cannot wash the State’s hands of responsibility, directing the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹10 lakh to the family of a minor who died in custody. Court stated that even a self-inflicted death behind bars is an “unnatural death” that squarely attracts constitutional liability.

A bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla allowed a writ petition filed by Prema Devi, whose son Sukhvinder died on February 20, 2024, barely two weeks after being arrested in execution of a warrant for non-appearance before the trial court.

The deceased was an accused in a 2016 case registered under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC [corresponding to Sections 137 (2), 87 and 64 of the BNS, respectively) and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act. He had earlier undergone nearly three years and ten months of incarceration before being enlarged on bail in February 2022. However, after failing to appear before the trial court, he was arrested on February 7, 2024 and remanded to custody.

On February 20, 2024, prison authorities informed the petitioner that her son had died. A panchnama conducted on the same day recorded that he had hanged himself using a muffler from a ventilator in the prison toilet. The post-mortem report attributed the cause of death to asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging and noted the presence of a ligature mark on the neck.

An inquest conducted by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 176 of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 196 of the BNSS) concluded that the death was a case of suicide and found no external injuries suggestive of custodial violence.

The National Human Rights Commission, after considering the reports, directed payment of ₹3 lakh as compensation to the next of kin. Although the state approved the amount, it submitted before the court that disbursal was delayed due to the ongoing process of verifying the rightful legal heir and awaiting budgetary allocation.

The petitioner, however, alleged that her son had been subjected to torture in jail over illegal monetary demands and that she was pressured to perform the last rites immediately. She contended that the state’s inaction in paying compensation violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Framing the primary issue as whether a case of custodial death had been made out, court held that it was undisputed that the deceased was in state custody at the time of his death. Referring to precedents including Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) and Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2017), the bench observed that an unnatural death in custody, including suicide, attracts constitutional scrutiny and public law liability.

Court rejected the state’s submission that suicide would absolve it of responsibility, noting that the Supreme Court has categorised suicide as an “intentional injury” and therefore an unnatural death. The burden, it held, lies squarely on the state to satisfactorily explain the circumstances leading to the death.

While the NHRC had recommended ₹3 lakh, the bench observed that constitutional courts have, in recent years, awarded ₹10 lakh in custodial death cases. Holding that monetary compensation serves as a public law remedy for violation of Article 21, the court directed payment of ₹10 lakh to the legal heirs within three weeks.

The bench further clarified that the compensation would be without prejudice to any civil or criminal proceedings against the officials concerned. It also directed the state government to frame guidelines for determining compensation in custodial death cases, drawing from parameters such as age, income and dependants, akin to the multiplier method under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

With these directions, the writ petition was allowed.

Case Title: Prema Devi vs. State of U.P. Thru. its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 others

Order Date: February 20, 2026

Bench: Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla