Compensation and Free Treatment for a Person Arrested Wrongfully

S.P.Mahanta vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors

Filed under: Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Appellant: S.P.Mahanta
Respondent: State of Meghalaya & Ors
Citation: 2005(4) GLT 211
Court: In the High Court of Meghalaya
Judges: B.K.Sharma

This Writ Petition was filed by an advocate who was appointed to defend Deep Charan Kaipang who was accused of having committed a murder, in a Sessions Court Case.

Facts

The advocate concerned in this case had found from the records that Deep Charan Kaipang was sent to a mental home in 1995 on the basis of a report, showing that he was suffering from a mental disorder. In August 2000, Deep was produced before the Court and the Trial Judge found him incapacitated to understand the proceedings of the Court. The Judge stated that Deep Charan required medical attention and the Superintendent of the District Jail was directed to have him examined by a qualified medical officer.

Deep Charan was arrested on the basis of a letter which stated that he had stabbed someone, resulting in his death. Deep was then presented before the Magistrate Court in 1992 and had been in custody since then. Subsequent to the direction that he was to be examined by the medical officer, Deep was produced again before the Court, in August 2000 with a report that he was normal.

However, the District Judge was not convinced with the report, seeing Deep’s apparent abnormal behavior in the Courtroom. He thus, passed an order directing the Jail Superintendent to produce Deep before a Medical Board. On the same day, the advocate (petitioner in this case) was appointed to defend Deep Charan.

The Medical Board found Deep unfit to stand the trial and referred him for treatment to the Meghalaya Institute of Mental Health and Neurological Sciences (MIMHANS). The Judge, based on the report, issued a direction for Deep’s medical treatment at the Institute, and to report his progress, every fifteen days. Further, noticing that Deep was languishing in jail for 8 years, the Judge asked the Superintendent to send a message to his relatives at the earliest. With these directions, the criminal trial was kept in abeyance until Deep recovered.

On 12.02.2001, MIMHANS submitted a report recommending treatment for Deep at the Down Town Hospital, Guwahati. Based on the said report, the Trial Court issued an order directing Deep’s treatment in the above hospital in Guwhati.

When Deep Charan was produced before the Court on 10.04.2001, he was found capable of talking, and free from insanity and in a position to stand trial. On that day, Deep disclosed that his name was Rusith D. Sangma, a married man, with a daughter. He also stated that he was not involved in any criminal case and that he had been languishing in jail for 14 years. The Trial Court took a serious view of this matter and directed the SP to produce his family members on the next date of hearing.

On the next date, the SP produced the information as to where Deep had been born and brought up and informed the Court that his family members were not in a position to come to the Court due to financial constraints.

The Court ordered to produce them at State expenses. Further direction was also given to investigate whether Sri Sangma was involved in any case in the last 14 to 20 years. In the above circumstances, advocate S.P.Mahanta filed the present Writ Petition in the year 2001 claiming adequate compensation for such illegal detention due to mistaken identity.

Observations of the Court

There was no information available as to in what connection Rusith had been arrested and detained in custody since 1987. The Trial Court therefore released him in the custody of his brother Thomas D Sangma with the condition that Thomas would take care of his brother with the undertaking for his production before the Court as and when it was deemed necessary.

On release of Rusith to his brother’s custody, the High Court directed the CBI to investigate into the mystery of how and when, Deep Charan Kaipang, an unter trial prisoner’s disappearance had taken place and his place was taken by Rusith, and to report on the same.

The Court also passed an interim order for payment of compensation of Rs.2,500 per month. It was to be paid to his brother through the Deputy Commissioner for maintaining him and his family. It was observed by the Court that though the CBI did a very good investigation into the matter, the whereabouts of Deep Charan were not found and nobody was aware of the same. However, the records had shown that Deep went missing and he was replaced by Rusith in 1995 after a Court hearing date.

Further, it was observed by the Court that Rusith’s detention from 1990, initially as a non-criminal lunatic and thereafter as an under trial prisoner, treating him as Deep Charan was in violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and thus he was entitled to compensation from the State.

It was also held that Rusith had suffered due to the callous and irresponsible behavior of the state authorities and based on the CBI report it was found that his fundamental right was violated for no reason. It was noted that while quantifying compensation, there was also a need to initiate disciplinary/criminal proceedings against the erring state officials.

The Court then passed a final order with a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to be paid directly to Rusith who would be helped by the advocate who had espoused his cause. Further, the State was directed to provide medical treatment at the Down Town Hospital at its cost as and when Rusith required it. Further, Rusith was at liberty to manage his own affairs or be under the custody of his brother or sister as per his will and wish.

Further, the State was directed to initiate appropriate proceedings against the erring officers at the earliest and the advocate S.P.Mahanta was asked to oversee the procedure. The Court ordered a cost of Rs.15,000/- towards the advocate’s services and allowed the Writ Petition.

Sections Referred:

  • Article 21 of the Constitution of India

Cases Referred:

  • D.K Basu vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416
  • Chairman, Railway Board vs. Chandrima Das as reported in (2000) 2 SCC 465