Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. It is true that the cases which came up before the Supreme Court related to custodial death, death of school children on a picnic, death of a passenger in a train as a result of the inaction on the part of the railway employees. In all these cases it could be said that the victims were under some sort of State custody, punitive or protective. It could be argued that Uday Singh was not in any such situation. He died as a result of a terrorist act and, perhaps, contributed, in part, due to the structural defect in the guest house building. What has the State got to do with this? I am afraid, the State has everything to do with this. The state owed a duty to protect the life and liberty of an innocent citizen such as Uday Singh. The State owes a duty to the widow (Kamla Devi) and the child (Mukesh), now that Uday Singh has been snatched away from them, that they live their lives with dignity. Compensation, in this case, would not only be a balm on their scars, it would also provide them with hope or the future. The fact of the matter is that Uday Singh lost his life on account of an act of terrorism. The State failed to prevent it. The Primary duty of the State is to maintain peace and harmony amongst its citizens. If for some reason, it is unable to put the lid on simmering discontent, then it is its duty to protect innocent citizens from harm. If it fails in this duty, then it must compensate the citizens who have been wronged."