COMPENSATION FOR POLICE MISCONDUCT SAHALI, A WOMEN’S RESOURCES CENTRE, THROUGH MS. NALINI BHANOT --VS—COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI POLICE HEADQUARTERS AND ORS.

 

 

COMPENSATION FOR POLICE MISCONDUCT

SAHALI, A WOMEN’S RESOURCES CENTRE, THROUGH MS. NALINI BHANOT  --VS—COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI POLICE HEADQUARTERS AND ORS.

[AIR 1990 SC 513]

 

This was one of the first strong precedent cases, allowing for compensation in the event of police misconduct by the lawless Indian Police Force. Petitioner asked the court to order Respondent to pay exemplary damages for the death of Naresh (Petitioner's son). Naresh was beaten and assaulted by an agency of sovereign power acting in breach and excess of power,

according to the prosecution. For bodily harm, such as assault, battery, physical injuries, false imprisonment, and death, a damages action is available. Furthermore, the State is liable for

the tortious actions of its agents. Additionally, the Petitioner/mother of the boy was entitled to compensation from the Respondent, the Delhi Administration, for the death of her child. As a result, it was held reasonable to order Respondent provide Petitioner compensation for Vicarious Liability.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Kamlesh Kumari and Maya Devi shared a house but lived in separate rooms with their children and spouses, who were not usually at home as they were truck drivers. Puran Chand and his sons Shambu Dayal and Prakash Chand were the third generation of owners to claim ownership of the property after it changed hands twice. They illegally evicted tenants, however, Kamlesh and Maya did not leave. Kamlesh received a court stay order against her forceful eviction and continued to live there as a result, the so-called landlord turned off the water and electricity in October 1987. Lal Singh, the Station House Officer of Anand Parbat Police Station, called Kamlesh Kumari on the 2nd, 4th, and 12th of November 1987 and instructed her to leave the premises. Maya Devi was thrown out of the house and Kamlesh

Kumari's children were taken away by the Sub Inspector of Anand Parbat Police Station on November 13 while she was trying to consult her lawyer. Her child had been locked up

within that time, even though she was able to release them with the help of her lawyer. Later, at night Shambu Dayal. attacked Kamlesh, and on November 14, Shambu Dayal, Prakash

Chand, Lal Singh and Sham Lal beat Kamlesh, tore off her clothes and molested her. Further, Naresh who had clung to his mother, but Lal Singh threw him to the ground, injuring him.

Kamlesh was taken to the police station and charged with criminal trespass, after which she was sent to Tihar Jail. Two days after the victim was depicted as the wrongdoer, she was

eventually released after 2 days. On November 18, 1987, Naresh was admitted to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital on the instructions of medical doctors and later died due to his injuries and the resulting fever and pneumonitis. The autopsy doctor concluded that the injuries were ante-mortem and that the suspected injuries were insufficient to cause death.  The cause of death was pneumonitis, which was diagnosed clinically. The nature of the

injuries on the child's left leg was later determined to be serious.

Puran Singh, Inspector, Crime Branch Delhi, stated in his report stated that the entire incident was part of an elevated conspiracy to force the tenants out of the residence. On behalf of Kamlesh Kumari and Maya Devi, the petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation. The writ petitions in this case have been brought to the Supreme Court. Exemplary damages were demanded for Naresh's death

ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE

I. Whether the Delhi Administration can be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts

of the Delhi Police?

Plea of the Plaintiff

The plaintiff argued that the death of Naresh (Kamlesh Kumari’s son) was due to his injuries caused by police officers and the court has the authority to provide justice to Kamlesh Kumari.

Plea of the Defendant

The defendants argued that the death was not due to the injuries as injuries caused were insufficient to cause death.

LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE

Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) –

• Section 34 - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention have

equal liability.

• Section 120B - Punishment of criminal conspiracy.

• Section 302 - Punishment for murder.

• Section 304 - Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

• Section 308 - Attempt to commit culpable homicide.

• Section 448 - Punishment for house-trespass.

JUDGEMENT

State shall be liable to pay compensation for wrongful act of its servant during course of his employment.

The judges on the bench, Justice B. C. Ray and Justice Ratnavel Pandian, determined that the State is liable for the tortious conduct of its workers and as a result, the Delhi Administration

is liable for the S.H.O. Lal Singh's lawbreaking. This decision mirrored the Supreme Court's decisions in Joginder Kaur v. Punjab State, and State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati wherein the

Court held the state to be legally accountable for the wrongful acts of its workers and ordered them to pay damages as per the case, In People's Union of Democratic Rights v. Police

Commissioner, Delhi Headquarters, where court awarded Rs. 50,000/- in compensation to the family of a laborer who was beaten by Delhi Police officers. The Delhi Administration was asked to pay Kamlesh Kumari Rs. 75,000/- in exemplary damages for battery, assault, false imprisonment, physical injury, and death. The damages for assault, battery, and wrongful detention, according to the Court, are primarily for mental agony, distress, indignity, loss of rights, and death. The Delhi

Administration was also given the right to sue the officials who were found to be liable for the damages. Further, the Court ruled that no observation in the case could be considered in the criminal case against the policemen because the officers were not present before the bench.