RAM SARUP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application for review is filed at the instance of the State and one of the officials of the State to test the correctness of the order passed by this court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution granting compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the petitioner who this court found to have been mauled and humiliated by a false case of rape and murder of his own daughter. Thanks to an intervention of a public spirited individual who brought out substantial proof that the man was not in any way responsible for the death of the child but he was the first complainant, the false case had been established as foisted on him to screen some persons connected to politically strong individuals of the State. It was under such circumstances that the writ petition had been filed. This court had made reference to the order of the High Court that led to the institution of CBI enquiry and discharge of the petitioner in the criminal case as the fulcrum issues for awarding compensation for the harassment and humiliation heaped on the petitioner, now deceased.

(2.) The State has moved this application for review to point out that at the time when the decision was rendered by this court, the petitioner had already died and that information had not been supplied to the court. The ground for review is that a compensation for personal injury and humiliation is in the nature of personal damages which cannot survive to the legal representatives in terms of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act. The counsel for the State would also rely on case law to point out that a suit for damages for personal injury cannot be prosecuted by the legal representatives after the death of the plaintiff who claimed damages for injuries, if the death itself was not on account of injuries.

(3.) Yet another application for review has been filed at the instance of the Senior Superintendent of Police who has been held jointly liable to make the payment, holding that the whole investigation that was found to be flawed was under the direct supervision of the Senior Superintendent of Police and hence, he was also liable for the amount determined as damages.