Smt. Jeeru Kala vs Superintendent, Central Prison, on 2 November, 2018
6. Having heard both the learned counsel and from the perusal
of the material on record, the admitted facts are that suspecting
foul-play in the death of the husband of the first petitioner while he
was in custody, the present writ petition is filed seeking
compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in support of his contentions relied on two judgments
reported in MUSTTKAMALA BEGUM v. STATE OF ASSAM1 and
1 2003 LawSuit(Gau) 413
5
PARVATHAMMA v. CHIEF SECRETARY2. From the perusal of the facts
in the above said judgments, they are not applicable to the facts of
the present case. The District Revenue Officer who conducted
magisterial enquiry recorded the statements of the inmates of the
very same block where the deceased was put up, and opined that
the deceased was depressed as his wife and other family members
were not visiting him when he was in the prison. It is relevant that
some of the inmates also gave statements stating that there was no
harassment by the jail authorities. The Human Rights Commission at
New Delhi also opined that there was no foul-play in the death of
the deceased prisoner. When both the authorities have concluded
that there is no negligence or otherwise on the part of the jail
authorities, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India cannot go into the disputed questions of
fact as raised in the writ petition that due to negligence of the jail
authorities, the husband of the first petitioner died. Therefore, this
Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in the writ petition
and the same is liable to be dismissed.