Custodial Death: Delhi HC Rules State Liable For Suicide, Orders 18 Lakh Pay

Justice Sachin Datta, while allowing the father's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, held that the custodial death amounted to a violation of the deceased's fundamental right to life under Article 21, making the State constitutionally liable irrespective of whether the death was caused by suicide.

The Court observed that an unnatural death inside a police station cannot be treated as a private act divorced from State responsibility."An unnatural death in custody, even if by suicide, is not a private act divorced from State responsibility, but reflects an omission of duty on the part of those charged with safekeeping," the Court said.

Rejecting the State's defence, the Court held that sovereign immunity has no application where compensation is sought for violation of fundamental rights under Article 226.

The Court emphasised that while statutory remedies such as compensation under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure exist, they neither limit nor exclude the constitutional power of High Courts to award compensation for infringement of fundamental rights.

Police Negligence found

The case arose from the death of the petitioner's 19-year-old son, who was arrested on January 15, 2018, in connection with a criminal case. According to the father, he and his son were threatened and assaulted by police officials, who also allegedly demanded money for the boy's release.

The following morning, the family was informed that the youth had allegedly died by suicide inside a room at Karawal Nagar Police Station. A medical board later concluded that the cause of death was asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging.

A magisterial inquiry subsequently found no evidence of homicide. However, a departmental inquiry held the investigating officer and duty officials guilty of gross negligence for failing to medically examine the deceased or shift him to a standard lock-up facility. The officers were penalised with permanent forfeiture of one year of approved service.

The High Court observed that the failure of police personnel to properly secure the detainee and monitor him established a direct causal link between the State's omission and the custodial death.

Compensation based on Multiplier Formula

In determining compensation, the Court adopted the multiplier principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, observing that constitutional courts may apply objective standards to ensure fair compensation in cases involving custodial deaths.

Treating the deceased's notional monthly income as Rs.12,000, the Court added 40% towards future prospects, deducted 50% for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 18, arriving at a loss of dependency of Rs. 18,14,400.

After adding Rs.15,000 each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, the Court awarded a total compensation of Rs.18,44,400, directing the respondents to pay the amount to the petitioner's father within the prescribed time.