12 Jun 2025
Order issued
ConcludedThe High Court of Delhi recorded adverse findings against police personnel.
adverse finding compensation.
Source: 2025:DHC:XXXX
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2025-0074Delhi, DelhiJudgment 12 June 2025
Delhi Man v. State (W.P.(C) 3476/2013)
The High Court awarded compensation for the custodial death of an undertrial prisoner killed in a gang fight in Tihar Jail, holding that the State's duty to protect prisoners' lives under Article 21 is absolute. The Court expanded the definition of 'dependents' under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme to include siblings and grandchildren, ruling that marital status of daughters does not affect entitlement. The Court directed immediate payment of ₹2 lakh (difference from NHRC's interim ₹1 lakh) and ordered DSLSA to determine further compensation up to ₹10 lakh.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 12 June 2025 in W.P.(C) 3476/2013, the High Court of Delhi (Coram: Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J.) returned findings adverse to the Jail Officials, Tihar Jail, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000).
- Register number
- DL 00 CW 0033
- Case reference
- W.P.(C) 3476/2013 / 2025:DHC:XXXX
- Court and date
- High Court of Delhi (Coram: Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J.), 12 June 2025
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Jail Officials, Tihar Jail
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme 2018; Article 21 of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “A prisoner, whether convict or undertrial, retains all his fundamental rights, including the right to life under Article 21. The State cannot abdicate its responsibility merely because the deceased had criminal antecedents. Compensation for custodial death is not charity, it …” (at para 18)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000).
- Present status of the proceedings
- The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
Judgment dated 12 June 2025. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
Custodial deathPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“A prisoner, whether convict or undertrial, retains all his fundamental rights, including the right to life under Article 21. The State cannot abdicate its responsibility merely because the deceased had criminal antecedents. Compensation for custodial death is not charity, it …” (para 18)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
24 Sep 2026
(Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).)
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.