📢 Too many exams? Don’t know which one suits you best? Book Your Free Expert 👉 call Now!

    Question

    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?
    A The State is immune from liability for acts committed by its agents in the course of duty. Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    B Only the individual police officer responsible for custodial death is liable; the State cannot be held vicariously liable. Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    C When the right to life under Article 21 is infringed, particularly in cases of custodial death, the State is compelled to pay compensation and must explain injuries sustained by the deceased while in custody, shifting the burden of proof. Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    D Custodial deaths are classified as accidental and do not warrant compensation unless gross negligence is proven. Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    E The victim's family must prove all elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt before any state compensation is granted. Correct Answer Incorrect Answer

    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.

    Practice Next
    More Other Laws and Acts Questions

    Relevant for Exams:

    ask-question