Delhi HC: Death inside police station does not mean negligence

The Delhi High Court observed that police cannot be held liable for a custodial death solely on the ground that the individual died inside a police station

The Delhi High Court observed that police cannot be held liable for a custodial death solely on the ground that the individual died inside a police station.

(Getty Images/iStockphoto)

“In such circumstances, in the absence of material establishing a specific omission, prior knowledge of imminent danger, or a reasonable opportunity to prevent the occurrence, negligence cannot be fastened upon the police by inference alone merely because the deceased happened to be at the police station. A tragic consequence, however grave, does not by itself establish culpable inaction,” the bench of justice Amit Mahajan, in his October 12 verdict, said. The order was, however, released later.

The court delivered the verdict while dealing with Delhi Police’s appeal against National Commission of Human Right’s (NHRC’s) April 19 order. The NHRC order had directed Delhi Police to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation to the kin of an individual who died in police station.

In the case, after a man’s wife died under unnatural circumstances in December 2019 and inquest proceedings were initiated, he visited the Narela Industrial Area police station to inquire about the investigation.

Delhi Police said the staff at that time were attending a briefing conducted by the SHO, the man allegedly locked himself inside a room at the station and died by suicide by hanging himself from a printer wire.

An inquest subsequently determined the cause of death as asphyxia due to hanging, police said.

Following this, the NHRC initiated proceedings and ordered the Delhi Police to pay ₹5 lakh to the man’s kin noting that the man was in police custody and it was the duty of the police officials to prevent him from doing any mischief.

The Delhi Police, represented by standing counsel Amit Tiwari, argued that the NHRC’s order was erroneous and had been passed mechanically, without establishing any human rights violation or negligence by the police.

Tiwari argued that NHRC had incorrectly recorded that the deceased was in police custody, since the man had visited the police station voluntarily and had neither been summoned nor named as an accused or arrested. He argued that the man was not under the care, control or security of any police officer, nor had his freedom of movement been restricted.

The NHRC, represented by advocate Rohini Prasad, however, argued that the police were vicariously liable for the man’s suicide within the premises. Prasad submitted that the police bore responsibility to safeguard public’s life and property but had failed to prevent or detect the suicide due to their lackadaisical attitude.

She further argued that police officials were aware of the man’s presence at the station but nevertheless failed to notice that he had taken his life, which, it argued, reflected negligence on their part.

Consequently, the court allowed the petition and set aside NHRC’s order, observing that there was no material on record to suggest that the man had been brought to the police station by the police, summoned or detained, or that the police officials had in any manner restricted his liberty. “In fact, it is the consistent case of the petitioner that the deceased had visited the police station of his own volition to enquire about his wife’s death,” the court said.