U.T Of J&K And Ors vs Jana Begum And Ors on 6 May, 2025

Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

U.T Of J&K And Ors vs Jana Begum And Ors on 6 May, 2025

Author: Sanjeev Kumar

Bench: Sanjeev Kumar

                                                          Sr. No.53
                                                          Supp. List II

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                   AT SRINAGAR
                CM 3201/2024 In LPA 136/2024


  U.T OF J&K AND ORS.                                  ...APPELLANT(S)
  Through: -   Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG with
               Ms. Shaila Shameem, Assisting Counsel
               .
                                      Vs.

  JANA BEGUM AND ORS.                             ...RESPONDENT(S)
  Through:-    Mr. Razia Amin, Advocate vice
               Mr. Z.A. Qureshi, Sr. Advocate


  CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

                              ORDER(ORAL)

06.05.2025

1. This intra-court appeal arises out of an order and

judgment dated 16th June, 2023, passed by the learned

Single Judge [for short “the writ Court”] in OWP No.

718/2015 in the case titled “Mst. Jana and Ors. Vs. State

of J&K and Anr.“, whereby the writ Court has allowed the

writ petition filed by the respondents and directed the

appellants herein to pay a compensation of Rs. 5.00 lacs to

the respondents within a period of three months from the

date of the judgment. It is further provided that in case the

amount of compensation is not paid to the respondents

within the aforesaid period, it shall carry interest at the rate

of 6% per annum from the date of the judgment.

2. The impugned judgment is challenged by the

appellants, inter alia, on the following grounds:-

(i) That the writ Court has not considered the

objections of the appellants and the stand taken

therein and, therefore, the judgment impugned is

contrary to the correct factual and legal position

attending the case.

(ii) That the writ Court has not appreciated that there

was not enough evidence on record to demonstrate that

the death of the detenue had happened due to

negligence of the appellants.

3. It was argued by Mr. Mohsin Qadri, learned senior AAG

that despite the appellants having amply demonstrated that

the jail authorities had taken all the security and safety

measures in accordance with the provisions of the jail

manual, the writ Court held the State responsible for the

death of the detenue.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material on record, we are of the considered

opinion that the judgment passed by the writ Court is well

reasoned and does not call for interference by us in this

appeal. It is not in dispute that one Mohammad Ismail Shah

was at the time of his death lodged in Central Jail, Srinagar,

as an undertrial in case FIR No. 174/2009 for offences
under Sections 302, 109 RPC of Police Station, Kulgam and

FIR No. 169/2009 of Police Station Qazigund.

5. It is also not disputed that while he was lodged in the

jail, he came to be attacked by a co-prisoner, namely

Ghulam Hassan Malik, as a result whereof the detenue

Mohammad Ismail Shah received fatal injuries and died in

the Central Jail, Srinagar itself. Once it is demonstrated that

a person lodged in the jail has been killed by a co-prisoner,

the negligence of the jail authorities in providing a safe and

secure atmosphere to the prisoners is presumed, and the

burden shifts to the jail authorities to come clear of this

presumption.

6. We have gone through the judgment passed by the writ

Court as also the material on record, and we do not find any

material placed on record by the appellants to demonstrate

that the unfortunate incident which consumed the life of the

prisoner Mohammad Ismail Shah happened despite all

reasonable care and precautions taken by the jail

authorities. Rather, the negligence on the part of the jail

authorities is writ large, and the death of any prisoner that

happens within the precincts of jail is required to be

explained by the jail authorities.

7. Without delving much into the issue and borrowing the

reasoning given by the writ Court, we find no merit in this

appeal and the same is dismissed.

                                       (SANJAY PARIHAR)        (SANJEEV KUMAR)
                                           JUDGE                     JUDGE
                          Srinagar,
                          06.05.2025
                          "Mir Arif"




MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

08.05.25