HC awards compensation to tribal boy for illegal detention

Cuttack, Aug 20 (UNI) In a landmark judgment, a tribal boy illegally detained in a jail even after being exonerated from a murder case, was awarded a compensation of Rs 8 lakh by Orissa High Court.

Acting on a PIL, a bench of Orissa High Court, comprising Chief Justice A K Ganguly and Justice Indrajit Mohanty, today asked the Orissa Government to deposit the amount, which would be kept in a nationalized bank, as a fixed deposit for 10 years.

The bench ordered that during this period the victim would be allowed to withdraw 75 per cent of the monthly interest and withdraw the whole amount only after maturity.

Thirteen-year old Pratap Naik of Boudh, arrested in February 1989 in a murder case, was convicted by the District court in December 1989 and given life imprisonment.

He continued to languish in jail till January 2003 even though he was exonerated from the murder charge in October 1994 by the High Court.

A lower court employee failed to produce the acquittal order of the High Court before the District court of Phulbani for Pratap's release.

The High Court order was held back by him for more than eight years and Pratap was released after being confined in the jail for 13 years and ten months.

The tribal boy did not seek any relief for his illegal detention It was only social activist Prabir Kumar Das, an advocate, who moved the High Court in September 2005 seeking a compensation of Rs 10 lakh.

The boy by then was found mentally sick and undergoing treatment in a hospital following his long detention inside the jail.

The court, which completed the hearing of the case in June last, observed that, ''Right to life and personal liberty of any person cannot be curtailed by the state.'' The victim, the bench further said, '' should be awarded compensation for the loss of eight valuable years of his life for no fault of his''.

The bench further said ''A poor man does not deserve lesser compensation for the violation of his rights by the state''. It said the state government could not absolve of its responsibilities from paying the compensation as the erring staff was a state government employee.

UNI