Criminal Procedure Code

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa

(1993) 2 SCC 746

Facts

Nilabati Behera’s son, Suman Behera, was taken from his home by police for investigation of a theft.
He remained in police custody overnight.
The following day, his body was found near a railway track with multiple injuries.
The police claimed that he had escaped custody and died in a railway accident.
Nilabati Behera wrote to the Supreme Court alleging custodial death.
Her letter was treated as a writ petition under Article 32.
A judicial inquiry found that the injuries were inconsistent with the police explanation and that the death occurred as a result of custodial violence. ( )

Whether constitutional courts may award compensation for custodial death.
Whether sovereign immunity protects the State from public-law liability.
How public-law compensation differs from civil damages and criminal prosecution.

Article 21 requires the State to protect the life and bodily integrity of every person in custody.
A person does not lose fundamental rights merely because they are arrested or detained.
Where State officials cause an established violation of Article 21, constitutional courts may award monetary compensation under Articles 32 or 226.
This is a public-law remedy designed to:
acknowledge the constitutional wrong;
impose accountability upon the State;
and provide immediate relief.
Sovereign immunity is not a defence to a constitutional compensation claim.
Public-law compensation is separate from:
civil damages;
criminal prosecution;
disciplinary proceedings;
or compensation available under another statute.
The State may pursue the responsible officers separately according to law.
The procedural safeguards governing custody are now reinforced by BNSS arrest, medical examination and remand provisions, but the constitutional remedy remains independent. ()

The police had exclusive control over Suman Behera after taking him into custody.
Their explanation required the Court to accept that:
he escaped;
reached the railway track;
and suffered the injuries accidentally.
The medical and inquiry findings did not support that account.
The injuries indicated custodial assault rather than an ordinary railway accident.
Once the State takes a person into custody, it must explain:
how that person was treated;
how injuries occurred;
and how the person came to leave lawful custody.
The Court held that the mother should not be forced to pursue a lengthy civil suit merely to obtain recognition of an established constitutional wrong.
A civil claim would require:
pleadings;
evidence;
trial;
and possibly years of litigation.
Article 32 would become ineffective if the Court could declare a violation but offer no meaningful relief.
Compensation was not treated as the value of the deceased’s life.
It was a remedial response to State failure and abuse of public power.
The officers remained exposed to criminal and disciplinary consequences.
The award against the State ensured that the constitutional responsibility of the public authority was not avoided by attributing everything to individual misconduct.

The Supreme Court held the State liable for the custodial death and awarded compensation to Nilabati Behera.
It rejected sovereign immunity in public-law claims for violation of fundamental rights.
The judgment established constitutional compensation as a central remedy for custodial death and police excess. ( )