Delhi HC Directs Delhi Govt To Pay Rs 18.44 Lakh Compensation To Father For Death Of 19-Year-Old Son In Police Custody
It is entirely in the fitness of things that the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Shyam Sunder v. State NCT of Delhi in W.P.(C) 9558/2020 and CM APPL.30647/2020 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:DHC:5226 that was pronounced very recently on July 1, 2026 has awarded compensation of Rs 18.44 lakh to the father of a 19-year-old who had died an unnatural death while in police custody in 2018 observing that the State bears an “absolute and inalienable duty” to protect the life and dignity of persons in the custody of the Karawal Nagar police station. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sachin Datta minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that an unnatural death in custody, even if by suicide, is not a private act divorced from State responsibility and observed that persons in custody continue to enjoy the protection of Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution. It merits noting that the Delhi Police had arrested the deceased on January 15, 2018 from the Karkardooma Court premises.
It also must be certainly borne in mind that the Delhi High Court added that a custodial death cannot be reduced to an individual tragedy and that it demands scrutiny as it concerns the credibility of the legal system itself! Absolutely right! It is high time and those police men and women who are found to be culpable of causing custodial death must be punished most strictly and sentenced to jail for not less than 25 years and extending to death so that a very loud and strong message goes all across that there is zero tolerance for custodial deaths in a democratic country like India and those who indulge in the same even if they don police uniform will not be allowed to go away scot free and shall be punished most strictly just like other offenders under the rule of law thus vindicating the age old dictum that, “Be you ever so high, the law stands above you.” There can be just no denying or disputing it!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking compensation for the custodial death of his son, Deepak, who is stated to have died an unnatural death while in custody at Police Station Karawal Nagar.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the factual matrix stating that, “The factual matrix, as set forth by the petitioner, is that on 15.01.2018, the deceased was arrested at approximately 11:10 a.m. from the premises of Karkardooma Courts by SI Sandeep in connection with FIR No. 334/2017 registered at PS Karawal Nagar. Pursuant to the arrest, when the petitioner went to the police station to meet his son, the petitioner himself was detained and confined in the lock-up along with the deceased. At about 5:30 p.m. on the same day, the petitioner was released. It is alleged, however, that both the petitioner and his son were subjected to mistreatment, physical assault and threats by SI Sandeep and Constable Karamveer Singh, who also demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000 – 30,000/- for securing the release of the deceased. Later that night, the petitioner received a telephonic communication from SI Sandeep, wherein particulars regarding the deceased were sought and the demand for money was reiterated. The petitioner, allegedly being of indigent means, expressed his inability to arrange the funds.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 3 that, “The next morning, upon contacting the police station, the petitioner was informed that the deceased had been produced before the Court. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner received a call from a local politician, Satyapradhan, informing that the petitioner’s son had allegedly committed suicide while in custody. On 16.01.2018, at 11.56 a.m. the deceased was declared ‘brought dead’ at Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital.”
While elaborating further, the Bench discloses in para 4 that, “Subsequently, a request for magisterial enquiry was made by the SHO, PS Karawal Nagar, before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts. The responsibility for arrangement of post-mortem, conducting photography of the concerned lock-up, seizing the ligature material purportedly used by the deceased and coordinating with the Crime Team for lifting fingerprints from the spot was given by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate to SI Sandeep Kumar.”
As things stands, the Bench then reveals in para 5 observing that, “On 17.01.2018, a post-mortem examination was conducted by a medical board, which opined the cause of death to be “asphyxia due to ante- mortem hanging”. The body of the deceased was thereafter handed over to the petitioner.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 20 that, “In the present case, it remains undisputed that the deceased suffered an unnatural death in custody at Police Station Karawal Nagar. The question, however, is whether such a death attracts liability for compensation. This Court, in the present proceedings, is not required to adjudicate upon the precise cause of death or upon the allegations of foul play or custodial violence. The issue before this Court is limited to the entitlement of the petitioner, on account of an unnatural death in custody, to compensation and the appropriate quantum thereof rather than to the attribution of criminal culpability or the establishment of foul play.”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 21 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “The present petition raises questions of constitutional significance. Custodial death is not merely an individual tragedy but a matter of systemic concern, striking at the very foundation of the rule of law. When a person is deprived of liberty and placed in the custody of the State, the authorities assume a heightened duty of care. Any lapse resulting in death within custody, whether attributed to violence, negligence, unexplained circumstances or even suicide, demands judicial scrutiny, for it implicates both the dignity of the individual and the credibility of the justice system.”
Most commendably, the Bench underscores in para 28 holding explicitly that, “In light of the above, the respondents’ submission that compensation is not an automatic consequence of custodial death cannot be accepted. It is well settled that when a person is in custody, he does not lose his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the State assumes an absolute and inalienable duty to protect his life and dignity. An unnatural death in custody, even if by suicide, is not a private act divorced from State responsibility, but reflects an omission of duty on the part of those charged with safekeeping. The State cannot escape responsibility by invoking statutory schemes or by contending absence of direct culpability. The very fact of custodial death, being unnatural, attracts liability and obliges the Court to mould relief in the form of compensation.”
Equally commendable is that the Bench while continuing in the same vein further holds in para 29 that, “This Court is therefore of the view that the custodial death of the petitioner’s son, being unnatural, attracts liability. The State, as custodian of life and liberty, is bound to compensate the next of kin for the infringement of fundamental rights under Article 21. The entitlement of the petitioner to compensation is thus beyond dispute. Having held that compensation is payable, the next question that arises is the determination of its quantum.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 37 that, “The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents upon Shakila v. State (supra), to contend that compensation must be confined to the statutory framework under Section 357A CrPC and the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018 is misconceived. In Kiran v. State (supra), the Division Bench of this Court was of the view that the concept of compensation on no fault basis could be borrowed as a guiding principle in cases of custodial death, and in computing the quantum of compensation applied the multiplier method. In Shakila v. State (supra), however, the Court was concerned with a distinct set of issues, and in the course of that adjudication did not advert to the judgment of the Division Bench in Kiran v. State (supra). Needless to say, this Court is bound by the decision of the Division Bench and the exposition therein must guide the present adjudication.”
Needless to say, the Bench states in para 38 that, “It is well settled through a catena of judgments, some of which have been adverted to hereinabove, that the compensation for custodial death flows directly from the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and constitutes a remedy in public law. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is wide enough to mould compensation as an equitable relief. Such compensation is distinct from and in addition to the statutory or private law remedies. The statutory scheme under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is only one avenue of relief; it supplements and does not curtail or exclude the power of this Court under Article 226 to award compensation for established infringement of fundamental rights. Custodial death, being unnatural, prima facie attracts liability under Article 21.”
As a corollary, the Bench holds in para 39 that, “Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to hold that the petitioner is entitled to monetary compensation, to be determined in accordance with the multiplier principle in terms of Sarla Verma (supra).”
Most remarkably, the Bench while citing the relevant case law points out in para 40 that, “Further, in Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571, the Supreme Court, emphasized that the role of compensation is vindicating dignity and observed as under:
“14. ………. But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not law’s doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations about law must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to human dignity.””
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 42 that, “The monthly income of the deceased is taken at Rs.12,000/-, which translates to an annual income of Rs.1,44,000/-. Since the deceased was earning fixed wages, 40% of the annual income is added towards future prospects, which comes at Rs.2,01,600/-. As the deceased was a bachelor, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses. Applying the multiplier of 18 (recommended for age 15 to 20 years), loss of dependency is computed at Rs.18,14,400/-. In addition, conventional amounts of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses are awarded. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.18,44,400/-.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench notes in para 43 directing and holding that, “Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay the petitioner, compensation of Rs.18,44,400/- within a period of 8 weeks from today.”
Finally, the Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 44 that, “The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.”
Author Bio
