Legal Aid Services, West Bengal vs Chief Secretary, State of West Bengal and Others

S.B. Sinha, A.C.J.

This application in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) depicts a sordid state of affairs.

The petitioner which Is a Non-Government Organisation (N.G.O.). grants legal-aids to the poor and needy and takes up the cases for the downtrodden, received a letter from one Smt. Latmoni Sardar widow of Bhusan Sardar on 22nd October, 1997. In the said letter it has been stated as to how the local police and the Jail authorities had been torturing the Under Trial Prisoners.

Bhusan Sardar was one of the such persons who had been tortured. With regard to an alleged incident a case was Instituted and according to the complainant and instead and place of the hooligans, the police authorities had arrested her husband Bhusan Ch. Sardar who aged 70 years at the relevant time alongwith another person. He was remanded to Jail Custody. Allegedly when her husband was in jail, one Gobinda Mali allegedly instigated by others alongwith Jail authorities had assaulted him severely with a ''SPADE'' and his head was chopped off. She alleged that unless there was a criminal conspiracy and the help of the prison officers and others such a thing could not have happened and her husband could not have been killed by a co-prisoner. Despite several reports no action had been taken.

This court directed the Inspector General of Police to submit a report as regard steps taken to provide adequate security for the prisoners of jail. Such a report was submitted but the same had been found to be insufficient. A further report was called for and filed in terms of an order dated 11th January, 1999.

The said report contains the question as regard improvement of living condition, medi-care facilities, rehabilitation programme of the prisons etc. But the fact that the aforementioned Bhusan Ch. Sardar was killed stands admitted. A Supplementary Affidavit has been filed. The matter also drew the attention to the mass-media and in a newspaper, it was alleged :--

"There was a long dispute between them. But the incident of murder by one accused to other accused created a great sensation. Pact reveals that on the said morning Bhusan was working In the garden of the jail before the accused persons were taken to the court. All on a sudden Gobinda attacked him. He snatched the spade from his hand and bitted four times consecutively. By the said strokes Bhusan was beheaded and separated from his body. Even then Gobinda did not stop. He dragged the dead body soaked with blood near to the woman prisoner cell and covered the body with earth while Gobinda was doing all these things he declared shouting that he has killed-and took revenge etc. After the incident the Inside atmosphere of the Jail was pantcy. When Dr. Chandra Sekhar Roy, Supdt. of Basirhat Sub-Divisional Hospital reached the Jail the dead body of Bhusan was removed from the earth. Dr. Roy declared him dead. The dead body was sent to Basirhat S.D. Hospital, on the other hand It becomes a surprise how an accused was murdered inside the Jail in presence of the Jail guards and other prisoners and now it becomes a great surprise.

Primarily it was guessed that Gobinda has mental insanity. But according to police source the Adivasi young man was arrested on the allegation of assault in the village. Court passed an order of release on the payment of fine of Rs. 500/-, But as he did not pay he was sent he was sent to the Jail."

It is admitted that a prisoner was killed by a co-prisoner inside the Jail custody. The deceased was a Under Trial Prisoner but he was made to work in the garden. The accused was also not awarded as rigorous imprisonment. The incident took place In the broad day light. The life of a prisoner is not secure even in the Jail premises. Not only no attempt had been made to provide security to the prisoners but no step had been taken even to stop the Incident after brutal assassination the killer was allowed the body to be burled Inside the Jail. The entire process could not have been done in absence of the Warders and other staff of the Jail authorities.

In the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by the Balkar Singh, Inspector General of Prison, the conspiracy aspect of the matter has been denied and disputed. Although it has been stated by the Inspector General of Prison that such occurrences taken place rarely but he had started thinking of improvement and development of the prisons'' conditions including the security and has already sent to the Government a proposal for Its approval. The said purported proposal is contained In Annexure ''X'' to the affidavit, which as has been noticed hereinbefore, has got nothing to do with the security aspect. However, It is alleged that the staff are required to undergo a special security training and also for overall Inspection, close circuit T.Vs are being installed. It is, however, admitted that various other measures are required to be taken. We have not been told as to what the pal arrangement would be and how implementation thereof would be effected.

We, wonder when the thinking process stated only in the Affidavit would be translated into action or why earlier no such action was taken.

We failed to understand as to how the deceased as also the killer Gobinda Mall could be asked to work in the garden. Gobinda, as noticed hereinbefore, was merely fined and he was not sentenced to any rigorous Imprisonment.

Whether the prison authorities were in conspiracy with the political parties with a view to get rid of the deceased as has been alleged by the compliant in her letter to the writ petitioner herein is correct or not, the fact remains that it cannot be a case where the entire incident took place within a few minutes as has been alleged In the affidavit-in-opposition by the Inspector General of Prisons. Not only the victim was repeatedly assaulted by a spade but even his head had been served from the trunk. The dead body, as noticed herein before, was burled in the garden. It Is really a matter of great surprise that even this aspect of the matter had not been enquired Into by the State and appropriate disciplinary and other actions had not been taken as against erring officers for their culpable negligence, if not, for anything else.

As an Officer of the status of Inspector General of Prisons had already affirmed as affidavit, it is not expected that police authorities would act independently and, thus, in our opinion, the matter should be enquired into by the Crime Investigation Department i.e. C.I.D. of the State of West Bengal. The complainant Smt. Lalmoni Sardar is also entitled to a compensation as a constitutional tort has been committed by the prisoner authorities. We award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by way of ''Compensation'' to the complainant Smt. Lalmoni Sardar and direct the State to pay the same to her within one month from date.

The State shall also Implement the order of a Division Bench of this court dated 10th December, 1997 in Practul Kumar Sinha v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (C.O. No 374(W) of 1989) apart from the order measures as had been recommended by the Inspector General of Prisons in his reports. Actions on the said reports must be taken within a period of three months from date.

This writ application is disposed of with the aforementioned directions

M.M.S. Ansari, J.

I agree.

Applications disposed of