High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2008-12-09Dismissed; petition without merit; right to see...

Sobha Joseph v. State of Kerala and Union of India

Case / Petition Number:OP 4721 of 2000-K

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: T.R. Ramachandran Nair
Judgment Date: 2008-12-09
Court Decision / Holding: Original petition dismissed. The court held the petition without merit but indicated that the petitioner may pursue compensation through other lawful channels. No costs.
Final Disposition: Dismissed; petition without merit; right to seek compensation through other forums preserved; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sobha Joseph

Respondents

State of Kerala
Union of India

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M. R. Rajendran Nair (Sr.)
• Rekha Vasudevan

Counsels for Respondents

• P. Muraleedharan
• T. K. Mohanan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Sobha Joseph, the petitioner in OP 4721/2000, seeks monetary compensation from the State and Union of India under Article 21 for the deprivation of life of her mother, who was murdered on 18 June 1997 while on her way to work at the Muthappanpuzha Post Office. The petition argues that the State had a constitutional duty to protect life and to prevent cognizable offences, and that its failure resulted in the death of the petitioner’s mother, a 41-year-old EDPM by the accused known as “Minnal Kuttappan.” The petitioner relies on a line of authorities to assert that monetary compensation may be warranted where life is taken due to State inaction or negligent duties, and that Section 357 Cr.P.C. contemplates compensation to victims, even though the offender died. The respondent State contends that the case involved a crime by a private actor who was apprehended, and there was no State failure or violation of fundamental rights, and that the remedy under Article 226 is not applicable here; the petitioner had civil routes to pursue recovery from the offender or his assets. The court distinguishes Rudul Shah and the other authorities as factsually distinguishable, maintains that the State’s prosecution steps do not amount to a duty violation, and dismisses the petition. It notes that the petitioner may seek compensation through other fora, and passes no costs against either side.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 21 of the Constitution of IndiaSection 357 Cr.P.C.Section 307 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Article 21 imposes a positive duty on the State to protect life; the State’s failure to protect life led to the deprivation and warrants compensation. She relies on leading decisions (e.g., Rudul Shah, Nilabati Behra, Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum) to support a remedy under Article 21 or under the Code of Criminal Procedure for victims of crime. Although Section 357 Cr.P.C. empowers compensation, she argues that the State’s inaction or negligence cannot be a defense where the life is deprived by a criminal act. Given the accused’s death, she asserts civil recourse against the offender or his estate, not the State. The plea emphasizes that the State had a duty to safeguard life and that compensation ought to be available through Article 226 or other mechanisms to safeguard fundamental rights.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the case involves a private criminal act, not a systemic failure or violation of fundamental rights by the State. They argue that the petitioner’s mother was murdered by an accused who was prosecuted; there is no State failure or negligence establishing a breach of Article 21. Although Section 357 Cr.P.C. enables compensation, the death of the accused eliminates the statutory remedy, and the petitioner has civil avenues against the offender. The petition is thus argued to be without merit under Article 226, as the remedy is not available in this scenario, and the State cannot be held liable for compensation for deprivation of life absent a proven State violation of fundamental rights or duty.”},

Cited Precedents (16)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar	(1983) 4 SCC 141	Distinguished	The court notes Rudul Shah as addressing monetary compensation for violation of a fundamental right by the State, but finds the present facts distinguishable because the crime was committed by a private actor who was arrested, and there was no State failure to protect life.
Sebastian M. Hongary v. Union of India	(1984) 3 SCC 81	Mentioned Only	Cited in the list of authorities by the petitioner but not discussed in the judgment’s reasoning.
Bhim Singh v. State of J & K	(AIR) 1986 SC 494 = (1985) 4 SCC 677	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of the authorities but not applied in the decision.
Jaram Singh v. State	(AIR) 1988 HP 13	Mentioned Only	Cited without discussion of its ratio in the judgment.
Challa Ramakonda Reddy v. State of A.P.	(AIR) 1989 AP 235	Mentioned Only	Cited among authorities; no treatment in the decision’s reasoning.
State of A.P. v. Challa Ramakonda Reddy	(2000) 5 SCC 712	Mentioned Only	Cited; not discussed in the court’s analysis.
SC Legal Services Authority v. State of Bihar	(1991) 3 SCC 4982	Mentioned Only	Cited without analytical engagement in the judgment.
Antony Cherian v. Union of India	(1992) (1) KLT 73	Mentioned Only	Cited as authority but not elaborated upon in the decision.
Nilabati Behra v. State of Orissa and Ors.	(1993) 2 SCC 746	Mentioned Only	Listed among authorities; not used as basis for relief in this case.
Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India and Ors	(1995) 1 SCC 14	Mentioned Only	Cited but not relied upon for the decision.
Ramulu v. State of AP	(1995) (2) KLT SN No.31 p. 24	Mentioned Only	Cited without substantive discussion.
P. Gangadharan Pillai v. State	AIR 1996 Ker.71 = 1995 (2) KLJ 201	Mentioned Only	Cited among authorities; no treatment in the judgment.
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal	(1996) 4 SCC 37	Mentioned Only	Cited but not decisively relied upon.
Common Cause v. Union of India	(1999) 6 SCC 667	Mentioned Only	Cited in the context of rights and remedies but not applied here.
Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das and Ors	(2000) 2 SCC 465	Mentioned Only	Cited among authorities; no direct application in the judgment.
Kodungallur Merchants' Assn. v. State of Kerala	(2006) (1) KLT 636	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of background authorities; not treated as controlling.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sobha Joseph v. State of Kerala and Union of India and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR** **TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930** ## **OP.No. 4721 of 2000(K)** **---------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **------------------------** **SOBHA JOSEPH, D/O. PULIKKAL JOSEPH, AGED 18 YEARS, PALIKKAL HOUSE, MUTHAPPANPUZHA P.O., THIRUAMPADI, KOZHIKODE.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR (SR.) SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA , REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI.** **ADV. SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN, ADDL.CGSC FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI..T.K.MOHANAN** **THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **ORDER ON CMP. NO.7821/2000 IN OP. NO.4721/2000** **DISMISSED 09.12.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS** **NIL.** _**/**_ **TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **tss** ## **T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **O.P.No. 4721 of 2000-K** **- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008.** ## **JUDGMENT** The main relief sought for in the original petition is for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be compensated by the respondents for deprivation of life of her mother on the public road. The amount claimed is Rs.5 Lakhs. 2. The petitioner's mother was murdered on 18.6.1997 at 8.15 a.m. while she was on the way for her work place, viz. Muthappanpuzha Post Office, where she was employed as an Extra Departmental Post Mistress. She was aged 41 years at that time. She was attacked by the accused known as “Minnal Kuttappan'. Crime No.116/1997 of Thiruvampady Police Station was registered pursuant to the said incident. The offence charged is under Section 307 I.P.C. and the accused was arrested on 18.6.1997. It appears that the accused died due to heart attack later. 3. The petitioner contends that she belongs to a poor family. She was studying for second year B.Sc. Nursing at that time and her younger sister was a Ist P.D.C. student. Their father remarried and apart from these two children, their large family consists of their grandmother and paternal aunt. OP 4721/2000 2 The father is a Postman. 4. The ground pleaded in the original petition is based on Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that the petitioner had to suffer loss as the State had failed in protecting the life of her mother. The State had a duty to prevent commission of cognizable offence and they failed miserably in discharge of the said duty. It is stated that even though Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the court to award compensation to the victims of crime, in this case that alternative is not there, in view of the death of the accused. 5. The petitioner relies upon various decisions of the Apex Court and this court to sustain the above plea which are the following: **“Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar** {(1983) 4 SCC 141} **Sebastian M. Hongary v. Union of India** {(1984) 3 SCC 81} **Bhim Singh v. State of J & K** (AIR 1986 SC 494 = (1985) 4 SCC 677 **Jaram Singh v. State** (AIR 1988 HP 13) **Challa Ramakonda Reddy v. State of A.P.** (AIR 1989 AP 235) **State of A.P. v. Challa Ramakonda Reddy** {(2000) 5 SCC 712} **SC Legal Services Authority v. State of Bihar** {(1991) 3 SCC 4982} **Antony Cherian v. Union of India** (1992 (1) KLT 73) **Nilabati Behra v. State of Orissa and Ors.** {(1993) 2 SCC 746 OP 4721/2000 3 **Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India and Ors** {(1995) 1 SCC 14} **Ramulu v. State of AP** (1995 (2) KLT SN No.31 p. 24 **P.Gangadharan Pillai v. State** (AIR 1996 Ker.71 = 1995 (2) KLJ 201 **Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samithy v. State of West Bengal** {(1996) 4 SCC 37} **Common Cause v. Union of India** {(1999) 6 SCC 667} **Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das and Ors** {(2000) 2 SCC 465 **Kodungallur Merchants' Assn. v. State of Kerala** (2006 (1) KLT 636) 6. All these cases have dealt with situations where the concerned victim's fundamental right was found violated by the State or its agencies. In **Rudul Shah's case** {(1983) 4 SCC 141}, while referring to the claim by an accused who was acquitted of the criminal charge, but was released from jail after 14 years of the acquittal, the Apex Court held that “one of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the payment of monetary compensation.” Thus, it was a case where the accused was denied his fundamental right by the State. The facts relating to the other cases cited above also show that in all such cases either OP 4721/2000 4 the State or its agencies have been involved and the excesses have been done by the officers of the State and many have suffered because of the negligent actions by the agencies of the State. Hence, the facts of this case is clearly distinguishable. Herein, the petitioner's mother was attacked by a criminal who was caught and was brought before the criminal judicial system. It cannot be said that the crime was committed because of any negligent act of the State or there was any violation of statutory or constitutional duty by the State to the individual concerned. Therefore, the allegation that the State has failed in its duty to protect her life cannot be supported. The provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C. clearly empowers the court to award compensation to the victim. Of course, in this case that possibility is not there because of the death of the accused. But that will not automatically clothe liability on the State to award compensation. The petitioner had a remedy before the civil court to seek compensation from the accused, his legal representatives and from his assets. The petitioner is seeking compensation for depriving the life of her mother and not for any violation of fundamental right available to the petitioner. This is not a case where the public functionaries are involved in the matter relating to violation of fundamental rights or enforcement of public duties. The State had apparently taken steps to prosecute the offender and in such OP 4721/2000 5 circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a failure of duty on that account also. In such circumstances, going by the principles stated in the various decisions quoted above, it cannot be said that the remedy of the petitioner is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Therefore, I am of the view that the original petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed. This will not prevent the right of the petitioner to seek compensation through other forums in accordance with law. No costs. **(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)** ## **kav/** OP 4721/2000 6 T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.4721 of 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## JUDGMENT 9th December, 2008.