Case Name: Shakila & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
Citation: Crl. M.C. No. 3476/2013
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Date of Judgment: 12 June 2025
Acts/Sections Referred: Constitution of India, Article 21; Delhi Compensation Scheme, 2018; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Case Type: Criminal Law / Custodial Death / Compensation / State Liability
1. Introduction
The case of Shakila & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. arose from the death of Javed alias Bhura, a prisoner who died while in judicial custody at Tihar Jail on 3 May 2013, merely two days before his scheduled release. The deceased was the sole earning member of his family and died allegedly as a result of injuries sustained during a gang fight inside the prison. His mother Shakila, and subsequently her legal representatives, sought a judicial inquiry into the circumstances of the death and compensation under the Delhi Compensation Scheme, 2018. The case raises fundamental questions about the State’s duty of care toward persons in custody, the right of victims’ families to seek accountability, and the eligibility criteria for compensation under schemes providing for relief to dependents of persons who die in custody. It also addresses the question of whether a fresh judicial inquiry is warranted many years after the death when prior investigations have already been completed.
2. Summary of Facts
Javed alias Bhura had been incarcerated for seven years in connection with a case of robbery. On 3 May 2013, two days before his scheduled release, he died within Tihar Jail premises allegedly as a result of injuries sustained in a gang fight among inmates. Two First Information Reports, numbered 194/2013 and 195/2013, were registered to investigate the circumstances of the death. The deceased’s mother, Shakila, filed the present petition seeking a comprehensive judicial inquiry into the death and appropriate compensation.
In 2014, the National Human Rights Commission took cognizance of the matter and awarded interim compensation of Rupees one lakh to Shakila, acknowledging the custodial nature of the death. However, Shakila passed away in 2016 before the final resolution of the matter. The petition was then substituted in favour of the siblings and grandchildren of the deceased, who continued to press for a thorough investigation and sought compensation under the Delhi Compensation Scheme, 2018, which provides for compensation to dependents of persons dying in custody. The matter finally came before the Delhi High Court in 2025.
3. Issues Before the Court
(i) Whether a fresh judicial inquiry into the death of the deceased was warranted given the passage of considerable time and the fact that prior investigations had already been conducted.
(ii) Whether the substituted Petitioners, being siblings and grandchildren of the deceased, were entitled to compensation under the Delhi Compensation Scheme, 2018 as “dependents” of the deceased.
4. Arguments by Both Parties
Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners:
The Petitioners contended that the earlier investigations had been superficial and had failed to establish accountability for the death of the deceased in custody. They urged that the circumstances of the death, occurring within a high-security jail premises under state supervision, imposed a heightened duty on the State to ensure a thorough and independent inquiry. The Petitioners further contended that as family members of the deceased who had been financially dependent upon him, they were entitled to compensation under the Delhi Compensation Scheme, 2018.
Arguments on behalf of the Respondent State:
The State contended that investigations into the death had already been conducted through the registration and investigation of the two First Information Reports and that no fresh inquiry was warranted after more than a decade. On the question of compensation, the State submitted that the substituted Petitioners had not established that they were “dependents” of the deceased within the meaning of the Delhi Compensation Scheme, 2018, and that blood relationship alone was insufficient to establish dependency.
5. Reasonings and Findings
The Delhi High Court declined to order a fresh judicial inquiry into the circumstances of the death. The Court noted that more than a decade had elapsed since the incident, rendering a meaningful fresh investigation practically impossible, as evidence would have been lost, witnesses’ memories would have faded, and material circumstances would have changed. The Court further observed that the prior investigations through the two First Information Reports had addressed the circumstances of the death at the relevant time, and that ordering a fresh inquiry would serve no practical purpose.
On the critical question of compensation under the Delhi Compensation Scheme, 2018, the Court noted that the scheme provides compensation specifically to “dependents” of persons dying in custody. The Court held that the concept of dependency requires careful factual assessment and cannot be established automatically on the basis of blood relationship alone. Being a sibling or grandchild of the deceased does not, without more, establish financial or other actual dependence on the deceased.
The Court observed that the substituted Petitioners had not placed on record sufficient evidence to establish that they were in fact financially dependent on the deceased at the time of his death. Given the deceased’s incarceration for seven years and the relatively modest nature of his alleged earnings before imprisonment, the case for dependency was not self-evident. The Court directed that if the substituted Petitioners wished to claim compensation, they must demonstrate actual dependency through appropriate evidence before the concerned authority.
6. Judgment and Conclusion
The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition without ordering a fresh judicial inquiry and without directing immediate payment of compensation. The Court directed that the substituted Petitioners were at liberty to approach the concerned authority under the Delhi Compensation Scheme, 2018 with evidence establishing their status as dependents of the deceased. This judgment affirms the principle that compensation under custodial death schemes requires proof of actual dependency and that blood relationship alone is insufficient, while also recognising the practical limits on conducting fresh inquiries many years after the event.
7. Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. What obligations does the State have toward persons in judicial custody?
The State has a constitutional obligation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to protect the life and dignity of all persons in its custody. A death occurring in judicial custody raises a presumption of State liability, and the State bears the burden of explaining the circumstances of the death and demonstrating that it fulfilled its duty of care.
Q2. What is the Delhi Compensation Scheme, 2018?
The Delhi Compensation Scheme, 2018 provides for the payment of compensation to the dependents of persons who die in police or judicial custody. It was framed pursuant to judicial directions and represents an acknowledgment of the State’s liability for custodial deaths and its obligation to provide relief to affected families.
Q3. Who qualifies as a “dependent” under compensation schemes for custodial deaths?
A dependent is a person who was actually financially or otherwise dependent on the deceased for sustenance and support at the time of the death. Blood relationship alone does not establish dependency; actual dependence must be demonstrated through evidence such as financial records, witness statements, and other documentary proof.
Q4. Can a fresh judicial inquiry be ordered years after a custodial death?
Courts may order a fresh inquiry if the original investigation was wholly inadequate or tainted. However, when a considerable period has elapsed, evidence has been lost, and prior investigations have already been conducted, courts are reluctant to order fresh inquiries as they would serve little practical purpose.
Q5. What was the significance of the National Human Rights Commission’s intervention in this case?
The National Human Rights Commission awarded interim compensation of Rupees one lakh to the deceased’s mother at an early stage, acknowledging the custodial nature of the death. This intervention demonstrated the importance of human rights bodies in providing prompt relief to victims’ families even before the conclusion of lengthy judicial proceedings.
