The Gauhati High Court has held that compensation for custodial death can be awarded even before a criminal trial concludes. In the Santosh Hojai case, the Court ordered Rs.25 lakh compensation, describing the accused officers’ actions as “barbaric” and capable of “shaking the judicial conscience.”
The Gauhati High Court held that compensation can be awarded in cases of custodial death even before the completion of the criminal trial, while hearing a petition filed by Joyanta Maibangsa seeking compensation for the death of her husband, Santosh Hojai, who allegedly died in police custody in April 2020.
The Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Shamima Jahan was dealing with a writ petition seeking compensation of Rs.50 lakh for the custodial death of Santosh Hojai. The petitioner also sought interest on the compensation amount from the date of death.
According to the petitioner, Santosh Hojai, a businessman from Dima Hasao district of Assam, was forcibly taken away from his residence on April 24, 2020, by five armed men in civilian clothes who later turned out to be police personnel. His wife immediately lodged an FIR alleging that he had been kidnapped.
ALSO READ: Madras HC Orders CB-CID Probe, Appoints Judge in Sivaganga Custodial Death Case
The petitioner informed the Court that despite the FIR being registered, no effective action was initially taken. She later approached the Gauhati High Court through an email addressed to the Chief Justice, stating that she had reason to believe that her husband was being illegally detained by security forces.
Acting on the communication, the High Court registered a suo motu case and directed the Assam Police to trace Santosh Hojai.
During the pendency of the proceedings, Santosh Hojai’s body was recovered on April 30, 2020, from a village area near Langting. According to the petitioner, the body was found in a horrific condition with severe injuries and signs of burning. Following the recovery, she sought a high-level investigation or a CBI probe into the matter, alleging involvement of Assam Police personnel.
The State informed the Court that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) had already been constituted. Subsequently, the investigation was transferred to the CID, Assam.
After investigation, the CID filed a charge sheet against eight accused persons, including a former Superintendent of Police, a former Deputy Superintendent of Police, a Sub-Inspector, four police constables and a private individual. The charge sheet alleged offences including criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, murder, destruction of evidence and violations under the Assam Police Act.
The Court noted that the charge sheet contained detailed allegations showing that Santosh Hojai was picked up from his house at gunpoint, blindfolded and taken to Haflong, where he was allegedly interrogated and tortured.
According to the charge sheet, he was taken to several locations, including Jatinga and the office and residence of senior police officials, where he was repeatedly assaulted. The investigation further alleged that he was kept in police custody overnight and was again taken out the next day.
The charge sheet stated that while being transported to another location, Santosh Hojai died inside a police vehicle while in the custody of police personnel.
The investigation further alleged that after his death, the accused police officials transported the body to a remote area, buried it in a jungle to conceal evidence and later destroyed official records, including General Diary entries and arms issuance records, to cover up the incident.
The High Court observed that the materials available on record, including the charge sheet and witness statements collected during the investigation, clearly pointed towards custodial torture and custodial death.
Rejecting the State’s argument that compensation should await the conclusion of the criminal trial, the Court held that public law compensation for violation of fundamental rights is independent of criminal proceedings.
The Bench referred to several landmark Supreme Court decisions, including DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar and other judgments dealing with custodial violence and compensation for violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s observations in DK Basu, the High Court reiterated that custodial violence and torture strike at the very foundation of the rule of law and constitute one of the gravest violations of human dignity.
The Court observed that even persons accused of crimes, prisoners or undertrials do not lose their fundamental rights and must be treated strictly in accordance with law.
The Bench further noted that constitutional courts have consistently evolved public law remedies to provide immediate compensation in cases involving violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life.
While examining the facts of the case, the Court said that the allegations against the police officials were extremely serious and involved not only unlawful detention and torture but also a deliberate attempt to destroy evidence after the victim’s death.
The Court observed that the accused officials allegedly picked up Santosh Hojai by concealing their identities, tortured him at multiple locations, kept him in custody, and after his death buried his body and manipulated official records to prevent discovery of the incident.
Describing the allegations as deeply disturbing, the Court said that the “conduct attributed to the accused police personnel reflected a barbaric nature of activities and had the effect of shaking the judicial conscience.”
The Bench emphasized that the role of the police is limited to investigation in accordance with law and that no allegation against a person can justify torture, illegal detention or custodial violence.
The Court reiterated that custodial deaths represent one of the worst forms of abuse of state power and that constitutional courts have a duty to protect citizens from such violations of fundamental rights.
The judgment is significant because it reaffirms that victims of custodial violence and their families can seek constitutional remedies and compensation under public law, regardless of the status of the criminal prosecution against the accused officials.
Case Title: Smt. Joyanta Maibangsa v. The State of Assam & 4 Ors., WP(C)/392/2024