In the landmark case Nilabati Behera
v. State of Orissa (1993), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of custodial death and the burden of proof. Though not directly a case on substantive criminal law definitions, it established principles relevant to criminal intimidation and improper exercises of state authority. The Court held that: Which principle regarding state liability for violation of fundamental rights was established in this case?

Solution

In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), the Supreme Court held that the State can no longer escape liability in public law for violations of fundamental rights. Specifically, when a person dies in custody, the burden shifts to the State to explain the injuries and death. The Court established that fundamental rights violations warrant state compensation, and the State must prove its account of events. This principle has expanded to recognize state liability beyond traditional criminal prosecution, reflecting the constitutional obligation to protect Article 21 rights. While this case addresses state liability more than criminal intimidation per se, it establishes that unjustified use of state authority (police custody causing death) violates fundamental rights.