Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This writ petition has been preferred for payment of compensation to the petitioner on account of death of her son, Late Uday Narayan Sharma, who died in police custody to the extent of L 10 lakhs along with the interest with cost.
(3.) It is submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that three persons, namely, Uday Sharma @ Munna, Wilson @ Pappu and Jonson Kiro died in police custody in connection with Jagannathpur P.S. case No. 162/90, for which the police personnel were tried in Sessions Trial Case no. 551/93 by the court of 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, and upon conclusion of trial all the accused persons were convicted to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and also to pay a fine of L 20,000/(twenty thousand), in default of payment of fine further to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two (2) years vide Annexure-1 judgment dated 27th March, 1996 and order of sentence dated 29th March, 1996. The widow of one of the deceased Wilson V. Roy @ Pappu had moved this Court for compensation in C.W.J.C No. 3088/1996(R) (Bahlen Balmuchu Vs.State of Bihar & Ors.) , in which this Court had directed the respondents to pay total compensation assessed at L 10 lakhs to be deposited on a Nationalised Bank in four respective accounts and the writ petition was allowed. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the mother of one of the deceased Uday Narayan Sharma, who died in custody in connection with the same case, in which the aforesaid accused persons were convicted and sentenced after trial and as such the mother of the deceased has moved this Court for payment of compensation of L 10 lakhs at par with the other petitioner, who was the widow of the deceased Wilson V. Roy @ Pappu and she is entitled to similar treatment based upon the same set of circumstances, which all the deceased suffered on account of brutal assault of the police in custody . The case is reported in 2003(3), JCR 198 (Jhr.). It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the deceased, Uday Narain Sharma was the eldest son and bread earner of the family of the petitioner aged about 24 years at the time of his death and had bright future upon whom the hope of the entire family rested his monthly income at the time of his death was L 3,000/as he was a Autodriver. It is further stated that the petitioner is living with her husband, who retired while taking voluntary retirement from H.E.C. in the year 1993 from the post of Pattern Maker and is an old man without any source of income as there was no provision for pension in the aforesaid Organisation from where he retired. Her second son is still struggling hard to seek employment and as such the petitioner along with her old husband and unemployed son is facing great hardship and difficulty to run her family and to earn bread and butter for their livelihood. Besides that, it is further submitted that the death of the bread earner of the family has caused not only loss of earning but has led to tremendous mental torture, feeling of loneliness and loss of care and protection of a grown up son to the ailing and old aged parents. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the widow of petitioner's son namely, Sunita Devi had remarried with another person in the year 1997 and she is living with her second husband and out of the said wedlock a child was born on 15.11.1998 as per birth certificate annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ application. The widow was earlier paid an ex gratia amount of L 25,000/in view of the specific order passed in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 621/1992 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated in paragraph no. 12 of the writ application. However, it is stated that the petitioner is the mother of the deceased and her husband has not received any amount on account of custodial death of her son. It is submitted that the factum of custodial death of the petitioners son on account of police brutality and torture now stands finally determined by the Judgment of the Trial Court where the complicity of the accused persons have been dealt with and it has been categorically held in the aforesaid term.;