Constitution of India, 1950-Article 32-Letter of a mother informing Supreme Court death of her son in custody Writ petition Appreciation of evidence Whether the death of petitioner's son in police custody due to police brutality.

Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 32, 226-Death in police custody-Power of Supreme Court/High Court to award compensation for contravention of fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 Purpose of public law proceedings-Remedy in public law proceedings Role of Courts Payment of Compensation Fixation Directions of Supreme Court on mode of payment and appropriate actions against individuals responsible for custodial death.

Petitioner's son, aged about 22 years was taken from his home in police custody at about 8 a.m. on 1.12.1987 by respondent No.6, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of the Police Outpost in connection with the investigation of an offence of theft. He was detained at the Police outpost.

On 2.12.1987, at about 2 p.m. the petitioner came to know that the dead body of her son was found on the railway track. There were multiple injuries on the body and his death was unnatural, caused by those injuries.

The petitioner alleged in her letter dated 14.9.1988, which was treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, that it was a case of custodial death since her son died as a result of the multiple injuries inflicted to him while he was in police custody and thereafter his dead body was thrown on the railway track. It was prayed in the petition that award of compensation be made to her, for contravention of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The defence of the respondents was that petitioner's son managed to escape from police custody at about 3 a.m. on 2.12.1987 from the Police, Outpost, where he was detained; that thereafter he could not be apprehended in spite of a search and that his dead body was found on the railway track on 2.12.1987 with multiple injuries, which indicated that he was run over by a train. The respondents denied the allegation of custodial death and their responsibility for the unnatural death of petitioner's son.

On 4.3.1991, this Court directed the District Judge to hold an inquiry into the matter and to submit a report. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence the District Judge submitted the Inquiry Report dated 4.9.1991. The District Judge found that petitioner's son died on account of multiple injuries inflicted to him while he was in police custody at the Police Outpost.

The correctness of the finding of the District Judge in his report was assailed in this Court.

The respondents contended that petitioner's son managed to escape from police custody at about 3 a.m. on 2.12.1987; that he was run over by a passing train and sustained the fatal injuries; that the responsibility of the respondents for his safety came to an end the moment he escaped from police custody, and that the factual foundation for State's liability for payment of compensation for violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 was absent.

Allowing the petition.