Senior Advocate Dr Yug Mohit Chaudhry breaks down the law of compensation

Jun 05, 2016, 06:51 IST | Team Sunday mid-day

Senior Advocate Dr Yug Mohit Chaudhry breaks it down

> The court awards compensation in writ jurisdiction when it holds the government vicariously liable for the tortuous action of its employees (police officers in this case).

Dr Yug Mohit Chaudhry
Dr Yug Mohit Chaudhry

> In the Malegaon 2006 case, according to what I have read in newspapers, the State is filing an appeal against the discharge order of the trial court. In case the State files this appeal, the appeal will have to be decided upon first. The compensation can be claimed only in case of false implication and not merely acquittal.

> In the Malegaon case, the final investigating agency (National Investigation Agency) has said that the earlier investigating officer, ACP Kisan Shengal, fabricated evidence and statements, to the extent of even planting RDX on innocent persons. Had this not been detected, they would have got the death penalty. Fabrication of evidence happens all too often, but the police officers never get caught. This time, they have been caught doing it and must be punished. It is absolutely crucial that the state not only compensates these innocent victims of police corruption but also prosecutes the concerned police officer to deter others from doing it again.

> The government will have to prosecute the officers and if turns a blind eye to what has happened, then a private complaint can be filed. But, before the case can even begin, the government will have to agree to grant a sanction for a private prosecution. If the government does not prosecute itself, it is not likely to grant sanction for a private prosecution because it wants to protect the police officers. The complainant must put pressure on the government to prosecute the guilty officers. The accused may be acquitted but the stigma remains, which very difficult to overcome.

Go to top