From Our Bureau
NEW DELHI: Delhi High Court on Friday held that the compensation should be higher if the injury is caused by the State while granting Rs 15 lakh compensation to a victim of the 1997 Connaught Place shootout here.
The man was grievously injured and continues to carry shrapnel in his body for no crime done on his part and yet targeted by police in a shootout.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh said the police officials were convicted of the criminal offences and hence the compensation to the victim needs to be considered at “higher standard” as compared to ordinary cases of negligence and inaction. She said it was not an ordinary incident and so thee order is passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Besides awarding the compensation of Rs 15 lakhs within eight week, the judge also ordered payment of simple interest @ 8% from the date of incident (31-03-1997) till the date of payment. In addition, the victim was also awarded Rs 2 lakh as the litigation costs.
The Court allowed the plea filed by one of the three victims of the incident namely Tarun Preet Singh, who along with his two friends, was travelling in a car and they had stopped at Barakhamba Road near Connaught Place when a crack team of Delhi Police resorted to a shoot out suspecting them to be terrorists.
While Tarun was grievously injured his two friends were declared brought dead when taken to hospital. An FIR was registered the very next day and the chargesheet was also filed. Tarun was discharged from hospital after a fortnight on 15.04.1007. He filed a petition in December 1998, seeking compensation of Rs 1 crore.
Ten police officials were convicted on October 16, 2007 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction was upheld by both Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.
“The cause of the Incident is beyond the remit of this petition. The conviction of the police officials has achieved finality. The injury caused to the petitioner, was an act of the police officials, who were acting in their official capacity,” the High Court noted in its order.
