Holding

A prisoner does not lose his constitutional right to life; the State is liable to compensate the family of a convict killed in custody.

Summary

Ramjit Upadhaya, a convict serving a sentence under Section 302 IPC in Central Jail, Varanasi, was killed by a co‑accused inmate. His wife and three children filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking compensation, arguing that the State failed to protect his life while in custody. The State contended that the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual contained no provision for compensation. The Supreme Court held that a prisoner retains his constitutional right to life under Article 21 and that the authorities have a duty to ensure his safety. Consequently, the killing constituted deprivation of life contrary to law, making the State liable to compensate the family. The Court ordered the State of U.P. to deposit Rs 1,00,000, with part placed in a fixed deposit to generate interest for the wife and children.

Issues considered

Whether a convict serving a sentence retains the constitutional right to life and safety under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the State is liable to pay compensation to the family of a convict who is killed by a co‑accused while in custody.
Whether the absence of a specific provision in the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual bars the award of compensation.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 21
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 303

Subjects

Right to lifeArticle 21Prisoner rightsCustodial deathState liabilityCompensationJail safetyCriminal law

Judgment

l .

SMT. KEWAL PATI A
;, v.
STATE OF U.Pc AND ORS.

APRIL 6, 1995

(R.M. SAHA! AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] B

Constitution of India, 1950 : Altic/e ?J.

-- ~-
Right to life-Deprivation contrary to /aw-Compensation for-Convict
undergoing sentence killed by co-accused-Held it is duty of authorities to
ensure safety of convict undergoing sentenc~fe and children of deceased
c
convict held entitled to compensation.

The petitioner's husband, a convict serving sentence under Section
302 of the Indian Pe11al Code, was killed by a co· actused in the jail. The
wife and children of the deceased convict filed a writ petition seeking D
compensation.
~ Allowing the petition, this Court

HELD ! A prisoner does not cease to have bis Constitutional right
except to the extent he has been deprived of it in accordance with law. Even E
though the petitioner's husband was a convict and was serving his sentJ'llce
yet the authorities were not absolved of their responsibility t!).....U.:-. bis
life and safety in the jail. Since. killing took place when be was in jail, it
resulted in deprivation of the life contrary to law. He is survived by his
J wife and three children. His untimely death has deprived the petitioner
' and her children of his company and affection. They are entitled to
F
compensation. The respondent· State is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.
1,00,000 within three months from the date of this order. [208-F, E, G]

Francis cora/ie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi
and Ors., AIR (1981) SC 746 and A.K Roy v. Union of India, AIR (1982) G
S.C. 710, relied on.
}.
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Crl.) No.
1119 of 1991.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) H
2JJ7
>

208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A K.V. Viswanathan for the Petitioner.

A.S. Pundir for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

B The petition was entertained on a letter sent by the wife of the
deceased Ramjit Upadhaya who was killed by a co-accused while serving
out his sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. in Central Jail, Varanasi. The
Petitioner and her children have claimed compensation both in law and on { _
compassionate grounds. Reports were obtained from the Inspector
C General of Prisons, U.P. and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Varanasi.
They confirm that Ramjit Upadhaya was killed by co-accused. A connter
affidavit was also filed by Deputy Jailor, Central Jail, Varanasi, admitting
that Ramjit Upadhaya was killed by co-accused, Happu, against whom case
under Section 303 has been registered. Affidavit was filed on behalf of the
Government as well stating that there was no provision in the U.P. Jail
D Manual for grant of compensation to the family of the deceased convict.

Ramjit Upadhaya was a convict and was working as a Nambardar in
the jail. He was strict in maintaining discipline amongst the co- accused. It
was due to his strictness in his behaviour as Nambardar that he was
E attacked and killed by Happu - a co- accused. Even though Ramjit Upad-
haya was a convict and was serving his sentence yet the authorities were
not absolved of their responsibility to ensnre his life and safety in the jail.
A prisoner does not cease to have his constitutional right except to the
extent he has been deprived of it in accordance with law (See Francis
Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors., AIR }
F 1981 SC 746 andA.K Roy v. Union of India, AIR (1982) SC 710. Therefore,
he was entitled to protection. Since killing took place when he was in jail,
it resulted in deprivation of his life contrary to law. He is survived by his
wife and three children. His untimely death has deprived the petitioner
and her children of his company and affection. Since it has taken place
G while he was serving his sentence due to failnre of the authorities to protect
him, we are of opinion that they are entitled to be compensated.

In the result this petition is allowed by directing that the State of
U.P. shall deposit a sill!' of Rs. 1,00,000 within three months from today,
with the Registrar of this Court. A sum of Rs. 50,000 out of this amount
H •hall be deposited in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank and the interest
K.PATiv. STATEOFU.P. 209
of it shall be paid to the wife and the children. The remaining amonnt shall A
be paid to the wife by the Registrar after being satisfied about the iden-
tification of the petitioner. The amount in deposit shall be paid to the wife
on her option after all. the children become major. In case ~f petitioner's
death p~ior to the children becoming major, the amount shall be divided
equally between the surviving children.
B
T.N.A. Petiticw allowed.

~
'