bipin prithiani

1

wp-6921.17.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 6921 OF 2017

Smt. Noorjan Samshuddin Bhanvadiya & Ors.… Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

******

Ms. Vrushali L. Maindad a/w Ms. Manali P. Sawant and Ms.

Akshada C. Mundhe for Petitioners.

Mr. N. C. Walimbe, Addl. G. P., a/w Mrs. Tanu N. Bhatia, AGP for

Respondents-State.

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Amicus Curiae, a/w Mr. Raghav

Dharmadhikari.

******

CORAM:MANISH PITALE AND

SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

RESERVED ON:25

th

MARCH 2026

PRONOUNCED ON :8

th

JUNE 2026

Judgment (Per Manish Pitale, J.) :

. A widow and two children of a deceased are petitioners in

this petition, seeking compensation from the respondents i.e. the

State and its officers, as the deceased, being the husband of the

petitioner No.1 died while in the care and custody of the Yerwada

Mental Hospital (a State Government run facility), due to a violent

attack launched by another patient in the said hospital. According

to the petitioners, the State is liable to pay monetary compensation

to them as the aforesaid incident would not have occurred, but for

the gross negligence exhibited by the State and its officers, while

bipin prithiani

2

wp-6921.17.doc

the deceased was in their custody as an inpatient in the Yerwada

Mental Hospital.

2.The deceased husband of petitioner No.1 was a real estate

agent and he was running his business from an establishment,

which was duly licensed under the Shops and Establishment Act,

1948. He was suffering from bouts of schizophrenia, due to which

he was undergoing treatment at a hospital in Pune. Thereafter, he

was admitted at the Yerwada Mental Hospital, as per medical

advice. The petitioner No.1 was informed that her husband would

be completely cured within a reasonable period, after treatment at

the Yerwada Mental Hospital. Accordingly, the husband of

petitioner No.1 was admitted to Yerwada Mental Hospital on

19.11.2013 for treatment.

3.On 21.11.2013, the petitioner No.1 was informed by the

respondents that her husband was killed by another inmate in the

hospital in the previous night. She was shocked to receive the said

news. Further information revealed that during the previous night,

another patient in the hospital named Deepak Suravase became

violent and assaulted the husband of petitioner No.1, as also

another patient. It is an admitted position that the duty attendant

found that the said Deepak Suravase was violently hitting the

husband of the petitioner No.1 in the observation ward and he

was also throttling him. As a consequence of the said violent

attack, the husband of petitioner No.1 died. The postmortem

report of the said deceased revealed serious injuries to his head

bipin prithiani

3

wp-6921.17.doc

and face and the cause of death was recorded as death due to head

injury and throttling. The other patient assaulted by the accused

Deepak Suravase also died due to head injuries.

4.In this backdrop, the petitioner No.1 was constrained to

approach the respondents for further information and details

regarding the said incident and the number of attendants and staff

on duty when the incident took place. The response of the Public

Information Officer of the Yerwada Mental Hospital revealed that

sufficient staff was not on duty. It was one of the reasons why the

incident took place. The petitioner No.1 also found that there was

delay in informing the Police about the incident and that earlier

also such incidents had taken place in the Yerwada Mental

Hospital. The incident was widely reported in newspapers.

5.In this backdrop, the petitioners filed this writ petition

alleging negligence on the part of the respondents and praying for

payment of monetary compensation to the tune of Rs.29,30,000/-,

terming the death of husband of petitioner No.1 as custodial

death, as he was in the care and custody of the respondents-State

Authorities.

6.On 03.05.2018, a Division Bench of this Court recorded a

statement made on behalf of the respondents-State Authorities that

in pursuance of an order passed by the Lokayukta, the

respondents-State Authorities are ready and willing to pay an

amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner No.1. It was also

recorded that amount would be paid within two weeks. It is an

bipin prithiani

4

wp-6921.17.doc

admitted position that such an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid

to the petitioner No.1 on 28.06.2018.

7.Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed their reply affidavit in the writ

petition. The incident causing the death of the husband of the

petitioner No.1 was conceded and it was also conceded that the

two patients, including the husband of petitioner No.1, died due

to violent attack by the aforementioned accused Deepak Suravase.

It was stated that the said Deepak Suravase was suffering from

poly substance addiction with psychosis, due to which he became

suddenly violent and aggressive on trivial matters. It was further

admitted in the reply affidavit that at the time of the incident,

which took place during the night, there were only three

attendants on duty, while there were 72 patients in the observation

ward in the Yerwada Mental Hospital. Yet, the compensation

claimed by the petitioners was not admitted and it was further

submitted that departmental enquiry was conducted and that

appropriate action would be taken against the responsible persons.

8.It is a matter of record that FIR was registered against the

said Deepak Suravase, but further criminal proceedings have

remained in abeyance in the light of the fact that he suffers from

mental illness and that he is undergoing treatment.

9.Ms. Vrushali L. Maindad, learned counsel appeared for the

petitioners and Mr. N. C. Walimbe, learned Additional

Government Pleader (AGP) appeared for the respondents and its

Authorities/Officers. Although, necessary assistance was provided

bipin prithiani

5

wp-6921.17.doc

by them, considering the nature of issues arising in the petition,

this Court appointed Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, learned counsel,

as amicus curiae, to assist this Court.

10.Ms. Maindad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submitted that since fundamental right of the deceased was

violated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which had a

direct adverse impact on his surviving family members i.e. the

petitioners herein, the present petition was maintainable for

seeking monetary compensation and that this constituted a public

law remedy recognized by the Supreme Court and this Court from

time to time. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to

judgments of the Supreme Court from the case of Rudul Sah vs.

State of Bihar & Anr., (1983) 4 SCC 141 onwards, to contend that

Constitutional Courts, including this Court, exercising writ

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has the

power and authority to grant monetary compensation to the

petitioners in the light of the obvious violation of the rights of the

deceased and the petitioners, due to the negligence demonstrated

by the respondent-State, in the facts and circumstances of the

present case.

11.It was submitted that in terms of the law laid down on this

aspect of the matter, the result of the criminal proceedings

initiated against the accused was irrelevant and that in such

matters payment of compensation and restitution ought to be

provided to the petitioners by the State, in the interest of justice.

bipin prithiani

6

wp-6921.17.doc

In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon

a number of judgments, to which this Court will make a reference

while considering the rival submissions. It was indicated that this

Court may consider precedents wherein Courts had granted

monetary compensation in cases of custodial death and also

consider applying formulae devised by Courts for calculating

payment of compensation under various laws. It was submitted

that this is necessitated as there is no statute governing such

situations, where a person loses his life in a Government run

mental hospital facility, while undergoing treatment, due to the

negligence on the part of the State.

12.It was emphasized that such monetary compensation is all

the more necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present

case, as the petitioner No.3, who is the son of the deceased and

petitioner No.1, himself suffers from 90% mental disability. A

certificate to that effect is also placed on record to support the said

submission. On this basis, it was submitted that the writ petition

ought to be allowed for the amount of compensation indicated in

the prayer clause.

13.Mr. Walimbe, learned AGP, submitted that it was indeed an

unfortunate incident that led to the death of the husband of

petitioner No.1, while undergoing treatment in the Yerwada

Mental Hospital. It was submitted that the number of attendants

on duty in the said hospital, at the relevant time, as divulged in the

affidavit in reply, could be said to be meeting the then specified

bipin prithiani

7

wp-6921.17.doc

norms. It was submitted that the State itself had issued various

Government Resolutions and Circulars to deal with such situations

and even if this Court were to hold in favour of the petitioners,

the quantum of monetary compensation ought to be within the

parameters indicated in such Government Circulars/Notifications/

Resolutions. In this context, reference was made to notification

dated 11.04.2014 issued by the respondent-State under Section

357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), framing

the Maharashtra Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014. It was

submitted that under the said notification and scheme, monetary

compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was specified for loss of life of the

victim. Government Resolution dated 28.04.2025 specifically

pertains to custodial death of individuals. It was specified in the

said Government Resolution that a compensation amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- would be payable in cases of custodial death. It was

further submitted that this Court may take into account the said

policies of the State while disposing of the writ petition.

14.On the allegation of negligence, it was submitted that the

material on record did not demonstrate any negligence on the part

of the State or its officers. After the incident, the victims were

taken for medical treatment, but unfortunately they expired. The

matter was reported to the police and an FIR was registered,

followed by investigation. It was further submitted that a

departmental enquiry was conducted to determine the

responsibility of the concerned persons, so that appropriate action

bipin prithiani

8

wp-6921.17.doc

could be taken. It was submitted that this Court may take into

account the aforesaid steps taken by the said authorities while

disposing of the writ petition.

15.Mr. Khandeparkar, learned amicus curiae submitted that the

State clearly had a duty to take care and that the present incident

demonstrated violation of right under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India, for which remedy of redressal in the form of

monetary compensation was available by approaching this Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned amicus

curiae also referred to the series of judgments of the Supreme

Court in various cases, including Rudul Sah vs. State of Bihar &

Anr. (supra), D. K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC

416, as also in the case of Suresh and Anr. vs. State of Haryana,

(2015) 2 SCC 227, to bring to the notice of this Court that the

principle of victim compensation as a public law remedy with

reference to Article 21 of the Constitution of India was well

recognized and that this Court was clearly entitled to exercise

power to appropriately compensate the petitioners as the surviving

family members and dependents of the deceased. He also referred

to Section 357A of the Cr.P.C. and in that context, judgments of

this Court, including judgment in the case of Vishnu & Ors. vs.

State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 562, which

followed judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suba Singh

vs. State of Haryana, (2006) 3 SCC 178.

16.As regards quantum of compensation, the learned amicus

bipin prithiani

9

wp-6921.17.doc

curiae submitted that this Court may consider the aspect of

restitution and compensation, as followed by the Supreme Court

in various judgments. The aforesaid principles found their origin

in the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of

Crime and Abuse of Power, 1985, issued by the United Nations

(UN) General Assembly.

17.In this context, he also submitted that this Court may

consider referring to the formulae adopted by Courts while

determining compensation in the context of motor accident

claims. It was submitted that although the said formulae indeed

had statutory basis in a different context, in the absence of any

specific statutory framework or otherwise for determining

quantum of compensation in such cases concerning duty to take

care of the State and negligence in that context, this Court may

consider applying the said formulae loosely to reach a figure of

monetary compensation that would sufficiently compensate the

petitioners, who are also victims of the said ghastly incident. It was

submitted that the State could not insist upon the amounts of

compensation specified in the notifications and Government

resolutions, upon which the learned AGP had placed reliance. In

that context, the learned amicus curiae placed before this Court

various alternative figures of monetary compensation based on

applying formulae evolved by Courts from time to time.

18.It was further submitted that although the respondents-State

had referred to an administrative enquiry being conducted for

bipin prithiani

10

wp-6921.17.doc

ascertaining responsibility of personnel for the said incident, no

further details were placed on record. It was submitted that this

Court may consider issuing a direction for foisting the liability of

such monetary compensation on the defaulting officers and

personnel of the respondents-State in the Yerwada Mental

Hospital, so that it would have a deterrent effect to prevent

further such incidents. In that context, the learned amicus curiae

invited attention of this Court to the requirement of minimum

staff and personnel at the relevant time under the State Mental

Health Rules, 1990, framed under the Mental Health Act, 1987,

to contend that in the facts of the present case, the rules were

violated, thereby indicating that the State and its responsible

officers were liable to pay appropriate monetary compensation to

the petitioners.

19.We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the

aforesaid ghastly and unfortunate incident, leading to the death of

the husband of petitioner No.1 and the father of petitioner Nos.2

and 3, has been admitted by the respondents. It is specifically

conceded that the aforesaid patient/accused Deepak Suravase

violently attacked the husband of petitioner No.1 and another

patient, leading to their death. The postmortem report of the

deceased husband of petitioner No.1 reveals the serious injuries

suffered on the head and face, due to the blows inflicted upon him

and that his death occurred due to head injury and throttling. It is

an admitted position that the deceased husband of petitioner No.1

bipin prithiani

11

wp-6921.17.doc

was in the care and custody of the Yerwada Mental Hospital,

which is a facility run by the respondent-State Government. It was

the duty of the respondent-State to ensure safety of all the patients

undergoing treatment in the said mental hospital by providing

adequate facilities and staff. We find that as per Rule 22 of the

State Mental Health Rules, 1990, framed under the Mental Health

Act, 1987, which were in force, at the relevant time when the

incident took place on 20.11.2013, required attendant to patient

ratio of 1:5, apart from other requirements of providing adequate

medical officers and mental health professionals.

20.Although, the said Rule pertains to minimum facilities for

out-patients, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in their reply at paragraph

13 conceded that as per norms there was requirement of 1

attendant for every 5 patients. The contents of the said paragraph

13 of the affidavit in reply further show that there were only 13

attendants on duty in the observation ward of the mental hospital,

where the husband of petitioner No.1 was admitted. It was also

conceded that there were only three attendants on duty at night

for the 72 patients in the observation ward. It is obvious that the

strength of the attendants was woefully inadequate, apart from the

fact that it violated the ‘minimum facilities’ for patients in the

mental hospital. On this score itself it is evident that the

respondent-State failed in its duty to take sufficient care of the

patients in the Yerwada Mental Hospital, including the deceased

husband of petitioner No1.

bipin prithiani

12

wp-6921.17.doc

21.Apart from this, it is evident that the authorities concerned

with the Yerwada Mental Hospital, which is a Government facility,

did not take care to ensure that violent patients like the said

accused Deepak Suravase were segregated from other patients in

the observation ward. This was the basic minimum expected from

the concerned officers of the Yerwada Mental Hospital. Failure to

do so led to the said incident, wherein two persons died due to the

violent attack, including the deceased husband of petitioner No.1.

We are unable to agree with the respondents about their claim that

there was no lapse of administration on the part of the hospital

authorities. We find that gross negligence on their part is evident

from the admitted facts, requiring no further evidence in the

matter. The petitioner No.1 had to move under the Right to

Information Act, 2005, to obtain information with regard to the

number of doctors and attendants on duty at the relevant time.

Her pleas fell on deaf ears and she was not granted any relief

despite the shocking incident and the consequent adverse impact

on the petitioners, as the surviving widow and children of the

deceased.

22.We find that the petitioner No.1 is not only faced with the

difficult situation of fending for herself and her children due to

the sudden demise of her husband, she is also required to take full

time care of her son i.e. petitioner No.3, who is himself suffering

from 90% mental retardation. This is evident from the document

at Exhibit ‘H’, which is a certificate issued by a Committee of

bipin prithiani

13

wp-6921.17.doc

Government Doctors, certifying that he suffers from severe mental

retardation of 90% and that he is unable to earn independently.

The certificate also specifically states that his condition is

permanent, non-progressive and unlikely to improve. This is

another crucial aspect of the matter, which this Court is inclined

to take into consideration while deliberating upon the aspect of

determining compensation to be paid to the petitioners.

23.The learned amicus curiae invited attention of this Court to

various judgments concerning payment of compensation under

criminal law and public law. Before going into the aspect of

determination of monetary compensation, it would be appropriate

to refer to the approach adopted by the Supreme Court and this

Court in circumstances where the State is found to be responsible

for incidents of death and entitlement towards compensation to

the survivors and family members of such victims.

24.In the case of Rudul Sah vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (supra),

the Supreme Court was concerned with the question of granting

monetary compensation to the petitioner who had suffered illegal

detention at the hands of respondent-State for over 14 years. The

Supreme Court found that although a money claim could be

agitated and adjudicated upon in a proceeding instituted before

the Competent Court, nothing prevented exercise of writ

jurisdiction for payment of monetary compensation, consequential

upon the violation of a fundamental right. In this context, by

relying upon Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme

bipin prithiani

14

wp-6921.17.doc

Court proceeded to grant monetary compensation to the

petitioner.

25.In the case of Nilabati Behera (Smt) alias Lalita Behera

(through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) vs. State of

Orissa & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 746, while referring to and relying

upon the aforementioned judgment in the case of Rudul Sah vs.

State of Bihar & Anr. (supra) and in the context of monetary

compensation to be paid for violation of fundamental rights, the

Supreme Court observed as follows :

“33.The old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to the

remedies available in civil law limits the role of the courts too

much as protector and guarantor of the indefeasible rights of

the citizens. The courts have the obligation to satisfy the

social aspirations of the citizens because the courts and the

law are for the people and expected to respond to their

aspirations.

34.The public law proceedings serve a different purpose

than the private law proceedings. The relief of monetary

compensation, as exemplary damages, in proceedings under

Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the High

Courts, for established infringement of the indefeasible right

guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy

available in public law and is based on the strict liability for

contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights

of the citizen. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize

public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under

a legal system which aims to protect their interests and

preserve their rights. Therefore, when the court moulds the

relief by granting “compensation” in proceedings under

Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or

protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the public

law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the

liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in

its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen.

bipin prithiani

15

wp-6921.17.doc

The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be

understood, as it is generally understood in a civil action for

damages under the private law but in the broader sense of

providing relief by an order of making ‘monetary amends’

under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of

public duty, of not protecting the fundamental rights of the

citizen. The compensation is in the nature of ‘exemplary

damages’ awarded against the wrongdoer for the breach of its

public law duty and is independent of the rights available to

the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private

law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a

court of competent jurisdiction or/and prosecute the offender

under the penal law.”

26.Thereupon, the Supreme Court granted monetary

compensation to the petitioner.

27.In the case of D. K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (supra), a

case concerning custodial violence, the Supreme Court referred to

the aforementioned earlier judgments and observed as follows :

“44.The claim in public law for compensation for

unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and

liberty, the protection of which is guaranteed under the

Constitution, is a claim based on strict liability and is in

addition to the claim available in private law for damages for

tortious acts of the public servants. Public law proceedings

serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings.

Award of compensation for established infringement of the

indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution is a remedy available in public law since the

purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but

also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system

wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and

preserved. Grant of compensation in proceedings under

Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the

established violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed

under Article 21, is an exercise of the courts under the public

law jurisdiction for penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the

liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the

bipin prithiani

16

wp-6921.17.doc

discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights

of the citizen.

54.Thus, to sum up, it is now a well-accepted proposition

in most of the jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary

compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and

sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of

the established infringement of the fundamental right to life

of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously

liable for their acts. The claim of the citizen is based on the

principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign

immunity is not available and the citizen must receive the

amount of compensation from the State, which shall have the

right to be indemnified by the wrongdoer. In the assessment

of compensation, the emphasis has to be on the compensatory

and not on punitive element. The objective is to apply balm to

the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or the

offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offence

(irrespective of compensation) must be left to the criminal

courts in which the offender is prosecuted, which the State, in

law, is duty bound to do. The award of compensation in the

public law jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other

action like civil suit for damages which is lawfully available to

the victim or the heirs of the deceased victim with respect to

the same matter for the tortious act committed by the

functionaries of the State. The quantum of compensation will,

of course, depend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no

strait-jacket formula can be evolved in that behalf. The relief

to redress the wrong for the established invasion of the

fundamental rights of the citizen, under the public law

jurisdiction is, thus, in addition to the traditional remedies

and not in derogation of them. The amount of compensation

as awarded by the Court and paid by the State to redress the

wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted against any

amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of

damages in a civil suit.”

28.Thus, the aforementioned position of law makes it

abundantly clear that the present writ petition filed by the

petitioners seeking monetary compensation, in the facts and

bipin prithiani

17

wp-6921.17.doc

circumstances of the present case, is clearly maintainable. The

admitted position on record shows that the State failed in its duty

to take care and failed in its public duty, resulting in violation of

fundamental rights, thereby demonstrating that the petitioners are

entitled to approach this Court for a public law remedy to seek

monetary compensation. We find that the husband of petitioner

No.1 was admitted to the Yerwada Mental Hospital for treatment,

as a patient on professional advice. He was admitted and kept in

the observation ward on 19.11.2013 and immediately thereafter in

the night of 20.11.2013, the aforesaid violent incident took place,

due to which he died. The said accused Deepak Suravase was

admitted in the said hospital on 13.11.2013 and despite his

tendency towards violent behaviour, he was kept along with other

patients, including the husband of petitioner No.1, in the same

observation ward. This in itself shows the gross negligence and

failure of the duty to take care on the part of the State authorities,

which contributed towards the said ghastly incident, leading to the

death of the husband of petitioner No.1. The fact that there were

only three attendants in the night when the incident took place,

for the 72 patients in the observation ward of the hospital, further

demonstrates the grossly negligent manner in which the

respondents-State Authorities were managing the affairs of the said

mental hospital. The husband of petitioner No.1 was in the care

and custody of the respondent-State and therefore, the State is

clearly responsible for the violation of fundamental rights of the

said deceased and consequentially, the rights of the petitioners as

bipin prithiani

18

wp-6921.17.doc

the deceased was the only breadwinner of the family.

29.Hence, the petitioners are entitled to seek public law remedy

by filing the present writ petition and to demand monetary

compensation from the respondent-State for the loss of life and

continuing suffering inflicted upon them. The determination of

monetary compensation and its quantum in such circumstances is

not governed by any specific statute. Although, the entitlement of

the petitioners is clearly made out, a specific framework for

determining the quantum of compensation is not readily available.

It is for this reason that the learned counsel for the petitioners as

well as the learned amicus curiae referred to various judgments of

Courts concerning compensation for custodial death,

compensation as determined under the scheme framed as per

Section 357A of the Cr.P.C. and also formulae evolved by the

Courts for determining quantum of compensation on the income

of the deceased and other such factors under the law pertaining to

motor accident claims.

30.This Court is of the opinion that once a conclusion is

reached that the petitioners are indeed entitled to compensation

from the respondent-State, reference can indeed be made to the

aforesaid judgments and the principles evolved therein for

ascertaining the quantum of monetary compensation payable to

the petitioners.

31.In the case of Suresh and Anr. vs. State of Haryana (supra),

the Supreme Court while confirming conviction of the accused for

bipin prithiani

19

wp-6921.17.doc

abduction and murder of two individuals, deliberated upon

applicability of Section 357A of the Cr.P.C. in order to grant

monetary compensation to the victims and the survivors. After

referring to earlier precedents on the matter, as also judgments

from overseas jurisdictions, the Supreme Court also referred to the

Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and

Abuse of Power, 1985, issued by the UN General Assembly. The

said Declaration referred to concepts of ‘restitution’ and

‘compensation’. The said Declaration specified that when public

officers violated laws, the victims were entitled to receive

restitution from the State. As regards compensation, it was

emphasized that financial compensation ought to be paid by the

State to the family, in particular to the dependents of persons, who

had died or had been incapacitated as a result of victimization.

The various components of compensation were identified as

compensation for physical or mental harm, lost opportunities,

including education, loss of earnings, harm to reputation and

dignity and the costs for legal and medical services. Thereupon,

reference was made to various reports of the law commission and

Section 357A of the Cr.P.C. Reference was also made to judgment

of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rohtash @

Pappu vs. State of Haryana (judgment and order dated 01.04.2008

passed in Criminal Appeal No.250 of 1999) to emphasize that

determination of monetary compensation to the victims ought not

to be dependent on punishment of the guilty. It was emphasized

that the victims had a right to get justice through monetary

bipin prithiani

20

wp-6921.17.doc

compensation, independent of the right to retribution as the

responsibility of the same is assumed by the State to ensure Rule of

Law. It was held that the Court was entitled to even grant interim

compensation, without prejudice to the rights of the family

members to institute other proceedings for claiming monetary

compensation. In that light, the victims in that case were granted

monetary compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

32.On the aspect of custodial death and monetary

compensation payable to the dependents of the victim, reference

was made to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the

case of Rekha Janardan Kale vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,

2012 SCC OnLine Bom 2301. In the said case, this Court found

that there was violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India

and thereupon, directed the respondent-State to pay compensation

of Rs.4,50,000/- with 8% interest per annum from the date of the

death of the victim till the date of deposit of the amount in the

Court. In the case of Vishnu & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra &

Anr. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court considered the

question of payment of monetary compensation in the backdrop

of death of an under-trial prisoner in custody, after taking into

consideration the material on record. This Court found that

although the said case was not a typical case of death due to

custodial violence or torture, the victim being an under-trial

prisoner died due to lack of timely medical assistance and

treatment, for which the respondent-State was held liable. In the

bipin prithiani

21

wp-6921.17.doc

said judgment, this Court observed as follows :

“10.In Suba Singh v. State of Haryana (2006) 3 SCC 178,

the Apex Court has observed thus:

“38.It is well settled that the award of compensation against

the State is an appropriate and effective remedy for redress of

an established infringement of a fundamental right under

Article 21, by a public servant. The quantum of compensation

will, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of

each case. award of such compensation (by way of public law

remedy) will not come in the way of the aggrieved person

claiming additional compensation in a civil court, in the

enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor come in

the way of the criminal court ordering compensation under

Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

11.In Sujata Mukunda Manerao v. State of Maharashtra

[2004 ACJ 11023], the Division Bench of this Court has

observed that:

“7.It is bounden duty of the State to look after health of

the inmates in the jails since they cannot take treatment on

their own and for the purpose of treatment, they are at the

mercy of the hospital authorities. Proper medical aid to the

inmates is a right available to them under Article 21 of the

Constitution. The Apex Court in P.B. Khet Mazdoor Samity's

case (supra) has laid down that Article 21 imposes an

obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of every

person. Preservation of human life is thus of paramount

importance and failure on the part of a Government hospital

to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of

such treatment results in violation of his right to life

guaranteed under Article 21. It is also laid down by the

Supreme Court in the said judgment that it is well settled that

adequate compensation can be awarded by the Court for such

violation by way of redress in proceedings under Articles 32

and 226 of the Constitution.”

12.Having gone through the records, in our considered

view, there has been total negligence and lapse on the part of

the jail authorities in providing adequate, effective and proper

medical treatment and on the part of the police guard on duty

bipin prithiani

22

wp-6921.17.doc

who declined to shift the deceased Pratap Kute to

Government Medical College, Aurangabad which has resulted

in his death.

13.The deceased was a young man of 32 years of age, with

his wife, children and parents dependent on him. The

deceased was not a hardened criminal involved in some grave

or serious crime. He lost his life only due to the failure of the

jail authority to provide medical treatment. It need not be

emphasised that the right to health enshrined in Art. 21 of the

Constitution of India particularly of a prisoner who is

deprived of his personal liberty, albeit in accordance with the

procedure established by law, cannot be ignored. In fact the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has in several decisions held that the

right to life includes right to live with human dignity. Hence

the duty of the State to provide medical treatment to the

prisoners, to take care and ensure their safety and security of

the prisoners and treat them with human dignity needs no

affirmation. The Government having failed in its duty, the

petitioners being the parents, widow and the children of the

deceased, are entitled for compensation.

14.As regards the quantum of compensation, the deceased

was 32 years of age. His parents, wife and two minor children

were dependent on him. The parents, widow and the children

of the deceased have also been deprived of love and affection

of their loved one due to his untimely death caused due to

negligence of the jail authority and the police guard. In such

circumstances, though we cannot compensate human life in

true sense, we are inclined to award compensation of Rs.

10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) to the petitioners.

15.In the result, the respondent No. 1 State of

Maharashtra is directed to pay compensation of Rs.

10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) to the petitioners. The

compensation shall be paid within four weeks from today

failing which the amount will carry interest @ 6% p.a. from

the date of the order till the date of payment. The State is at

liberty to recover the same from the concerned officers who

are negligent in providing medical aid to the undertrial

prisoner. Rule made absolute in above terms.”

33.A reference was also made to judgments arising from orders

bipin prithiani

23

wp-6921.17.doc

passed under the Consumer Protection Act in the context of

medical negligence for determination of monetary compensation.

But, the present case really concerns the failure on the part of the

respondent-State to perform its duty to take care of the patients

like the deceased husband of petitioner No.1, who were admitted

to the said Government facility-Yerwada Mental Hospital for

treatment. Instead of ensuring that such patients were given due

care and treatment, so that their ailments could be cured, the

failure on the part of the respondent-State resulted in the violent

death of the husband of petitioner No.1, as also another victim. In

such a situation, we find that while the aforementioned judgments

have granted monetary compensation to victims of custodial death

and also a case where lack of proper treatment to an under-trial

prisoner resulted in his death, a specific framework or formula for

determination of compensation is not discernible. As a matter of

fact, we find that there is no statutory framework for determining

compensation in such matters.

34.In this backdrop, we are of the opinion that nothing

prevents this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, as a public law remedy invoked by

the petitioners, to refer to and consider the principles evolved

from time to time for determining monetary compensation in

cases of motor accident claims. After all, such monetary claims are

also determined in situations like the present one pertaining to

sudden loss of life of an earning member of the family due to

bipin prithiani

24

wp-6921.17.doc

unforeseen and violent circumstances. The life of the victim is

snuffed out, as a sudden shock to the dependents like the

petitioners herein, leaving them fending for themselves while

facing the vagaries of grave financial and emotional deprivation.

The quantum of compensation to be paid to sufferers like the

petitioners herein ought to be based on a logical process, such as

the one recognized by Courts while determining monetary

compensation in cases concerning motor accident claims.

35.The learned amicus curiae, with the assistance of the learned

counsel for the petitioners, referred to the factors taken into

consideration by the Supreme Court in such matters. Specific

reference was made to judgments of the Supreme Court in the

cases of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Anr. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

& Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited

vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, Magma General

Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram &

Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, United India Insurance Company

Limited vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors., (2021) 11

SCC 780, Harpreet Kaur & Ors. vs. Mohinder Yadav & Ors.,

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1723 and V. Pathmavathi & Ors. vs. Bharthi

Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 SCC OnLine SC

158.

36.We find that the learned amicus curiae correctly pointed out

that the heads under which the monetary compensation is

determined, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the

bipin prithiani

25

wp-6921.17.doc

aforementioned judgments, does provide a logical and reliable

basis for determination of monetary compensation, even for the

petitioners herein, in the absence of any statutory framework or

precedent presently available for determining monetary

compensation in such situations. This is not a case of custodial

torture and death. It is also not a case of victims invoking the

criminal process for determination of monetary compensation. It

is an admitted position that the accused Deepak Suravase, for the

present, is not being proceeded against for the reason that the

proceedings have been kept in abeyance, as he is undergoing

treatment for mental illness. In such a situation, where the

husband of petitioner No.1 died due to a violent attack at the

hands of another patient of mental illness, in a mental hospital run

by the Government, the method for determination of quantum of

compensation cannot be traced to any readily available framework

or formula. In that light, this Court is in agreement with the

learned amicus curiae that the manner of determination of

quantum of compensation under various heads, as laid down by

the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments in the

context of claims arising out of motor accidents, can be looked at

and made the basis for awarding specific monetary compensation

to the petitioners herein.

37.We find that the learned amicus curiae carried out an

exercise to assist this Court by preparing charts for ascertaining

quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners, by taking

bipin prithiani

26

wp-6921.17.doc

into consideration alternative scenarios. These alternative

scenarios are based on the age of the victim at the time of his

death and the aspect of future prospects, apart from other

standard factors such as loss of estate, spousal consortium,

parental consortium, etc.

38.Although, in the writ petition, the petitioners have claimed

that the victim i.e. the deceased husband of petitioner No.1 was

aged 50 years at the time of death, copy of the passport of the

victim placed on record shows his date of birth as 22.12.1961.

The victim died a violent death in the aforesaid incident on

20.11.2013, thereby showing that he was about 52 years of age.

Thus, he was clearly above 50 years of age at the time of his death.

Although, the respondent-State has contended that since the

victim was suffering from mental illness, he was not in a position

to earn and therefore, monetary compensation is not payable, we

find that the petitioners have supported their assertion that the

victim was a real estate agent and that he was earning his own

income, by placing on record copies of his income tax returns. The

learned amicus curiae has correctly calculated the average annual

income of the deceased i.e. the husband of petitioner No.1 as

Rs.1,90,095. This is based on the income of the victim as reflected

in the income tax returns for the years prior to the death of the

victim. Thereupon, the learned amicus curiae has applied the

multiplicand and multiplier as per the law laid down by the

Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments and after adding

bipin prithiani

27

wp-6921.17.doc

amounts under various heads, including 15% additional amount as

per judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of United India

Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder

Kaur & Ors. (supra), he has suggested the amount of monetary

compensation to be paid to the petitioners at Rs.16,98,433/-. In

the said suggestion, learned amicus curiae has also included future

prospects, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, at

10%, since the victim in the present case was more than 50 years

of age. The other scenarios placed before this Court by the learned

amicus curiae are calculated by treating the victim as being 50

years of age at the time of his death and also by

including/excluding future prospects.

39.We have already noted hereinabove that the victim at the

time of his death was above 50 years old, as his date of birth was

shown to be 22.12.1961, as per his passport. We are inclined to

grant future prospects in the present case, as there is nothing to

indicate that the victim would not have been able to carry out his

work of being a real estate agent, for which he was indeed

operating an establishment, which was registered under Shops and

Establishment Act. The aspect of loss of dependency and spousal

consortium as well as parental consortium also needs to be taken

into consideration. Hence, we are inclined to accept the following

basis suggested by the learned amicus curiae for determining

monetary compensation payable to the petitioners :

Compensation Payable including future prospects and

bipin prithiani

28

wp-6921.17.doc

considering the age of the husband of the petitioner No.1 as

52 years.

Sr.

No.

Particulars Calculation Addition of 15%

as per the

Judgment of the

Supreme Court

(United India

Assurance v.

Stainder Kaur)

I.INCOME Rs.1,90,095

(Net of ITR of

husband of

Petitioner No.1

for the years

2013-14 i.e.

Rs.1,92,490/-

(Pg. 143 of Writ

Petition) and

2012-13 i.e.

Rs.1,97,700/-

(Pg. 149 of Writ

Petition)

II.DEDUCTION TOWARDS

PERSONAL EXPENSES

(1/3

rd

Deduction in Present

Case)

Rs.63,365/-

(33.33 percent)

III.FUTURE PROSPECTS 10%

(Age of Husband

of Petitioner

No.1 was 52

years)

IV.MULTIPLICAND Rs.1,39,403/-

(Rs.1,90,095- Rs.

63,365 + 10%)

V.MULTIPLIER 11 (As Husband

of Petitioner

No.1 was of 52

years age)

VI.LOSS OF DEPENDENCY Rs.15,33,433/-

(Rs.1,39,403 x

11)

Rs.15,33,433/-

(Rs.1,39,403 x 11)

VII.FUNERAL EXPENSES Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/-

VIII.LOSS OF ESTATE Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 16,500/-

bipin prithiani

29

wp-6921.17.doc

IX.LOSS OF SPOUSAL

CONSORTIUM

Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 44,000/-

X.LOSS OF PARENTAL

CONSORTIUM

TO EACH OF 2

CHILDREN

Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 88,000/-

XI.TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 16,83,433/-Rs. 16,98,433/-

40.We find that the petitioner No.1 i.e. widow of the deceased

victim is further found to be facing a peculiar adversity in the form

of petitioner No.3, who is the son, himself suffering from 90%

mental retardation. As noted hereinabove, the petitioner No.3 is

duly certified to be suffering from 90% severe mental retardation

and being unable to earn independently. It is further certified that

his condition is permanent, non-progressive and unlikely to

improve. The certificate is at Exhibit ‘H’, which is not denied by

the respondents as it is issued by a Committee of Government

Doctors. The petitioner No.1 would be required to take care of

the petitioner No.3 throughout her life, as there is no possibility of

petitioner No.3 being able to lead a normal life, much less being

able to earn and to assist the petitioner No.1. Therefore, we are

inclined to grant further amount towards monetary compensation,

beyond the amount suggested by the learned amicus curiae in the

above quoted table, in the light of the difficult situation being

faced by the petitioner No.1 in the facts and circumstances of the

present case. We quantify the said amount at Rs.5,00,000/-. We

have already found that the State is liable to compensate and

restitute the petitioners as it failed in performing its duty to take

bipin prithiani

30

wp-6921.17.doc

care, which resulted in the ghastly incident, leading to the

untimely and violent death of the husband of petitioner No.1, who

was the only breadwinner of the entire family. We find that the

amount suggested by the learned amicus curiae of Rs.16,98,433/-

deserves to be rounded off to Rs.17,00,000/- and a further amount

of Rs.5,00,000/- ought to be paid for the needs of petitioner No.3,

who is suffering from 90% mental retardation/incapacity. The

total amount comes to Rs.22,00,000/-

41.We are of the opinion that the amounts of Rs.2,00,000/- and

Rs.5,00,000/- specified in Notification dated 11.04.2014 (framed

under Section 357A of the Cr.P.C.) and Government Resolution

Dated 25.04.2025 (concerning custodial deaths) respectively are

woefully inadequate. In any case, the facts of the present case are

distinct as the husband of petitioner No.1 died a violent death in

the said Government run mental hospital, due to failure of the

respondent-State in performing its duty to take care.

42.In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.

43.The respondent-State shall pay the sum of Rs.22,00,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs) to the petitioners towards monetary

compensation, for the loss of life of the husband of petitioner

No.1, who was the father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The amount

shall be paid to the petitioner No.1 within a period of eight weeks

from the date of this order. The petitioner No.1 shall ensure that

the said amount is properly utilized for herself and petitioner

Nos.2 and 3. Since the petitioners were required to pursue this

bipin prithiani

31

wp-6921.17.doc

writ petition for the past nine years in this Court, we are of the

opinion that the initial amount of Rs.1,00,000/- already paid to

the petitioner No.1 need not be adjusted. In other words, the

aforesaid amount of Rs.22,00,000/- shall be payable in its entirety,

in the aforesaid stipulated period of time. The amount shall carry

interest @ 9% p.a., beyond the period of eight weeks as indicated

hereinabove.

44.Rule is made absolute in above terms. Pending applications,

if any, also stand disposed of. We place on record our appreciation

of the efforts of Mr. Khandeparkar, learned amicus curiae, for

providing valuable assistance to this Court.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)