AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed this petition for production of her husband Anandi Lal Patel who is alleged to be taken into custody by the police and subsequently his whereabouts could not be traced. Petitioner further prayed relief that a compensation be awarded to the petitioner because her husband was killed by police.
Division Bench of this court on 04/08/2009 passed a detailed order and issued following directions:-
"11. After so stating, their Lordships took note of the fact that the factum of commission would depend upon the issue whether there was custodial death. Regard being had to the fact situation, their Lordships in paragraph 12 held as under:-
"12. In view of the fact that sanction for prosecution has been granted, charge-sheet had been filed and cognizance had been taken, we feel that no further direction at present is necessary. It is needless to say that if any point of time, evidence surfaces before the concerned Court to show that some other offences appear to have been committed, necessary orders can be passed. We are not for the present accepting the prayer for compensation because that would depend upon the issue as to whether there are custodial death. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the truth or otherwise of the allegations made and which will be considered by the concerned Court."
In view of the aforesaid we would like to command the learned trial Judge where the chargesheet has been filed to conduct the trial and finalized the same as expeditiously as possible within a period of four months.
Matter be listed after four months awaiting the verdict in the trial from the competent Court."
The trial judge pronounced its judgment dated 31/03/2016 delivered in Sessions Trial No. 272/2010 and held the accused persons guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 331/34, 348/34 and 365 of the IPC.
The Division Bench earlier in the order as quoted above has specifically held that compensation was granted by this court in habeas corpus petition if it is held that there was a custodial death. From the judgment of the trial court, it is clear that there was no custodial death. The order passed by Division Bench of this Court earlier has become final.
In this view of the matter, in our opinion, we cannot grant compensation in favour of the petitioner because it has not been proved that the husband of the petitioner was died or killed while he was in custody and it is not a case of custodial death. The petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings for compensation, if she wants to do so.
The petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.