Complaints before the Commission The Commission held this to be a case ofgross negligence on the part ofpolice officials in the police station, as they had not provided timely medical assistance. It also took the view that custodial death did not only mean the death of an accused person in custody; the term included witnesses taken into custody, whose freedom of movement was curtailed by the police. The Commission felt that this was a case of 'custodial illtreatment' resulting in death. It thus directed the State Government of Gujarat to pay immediate interim relief of the amount of Rs. 2 lakh to the dependants of the deceased, with the liberty to initiate proceedings for recovery of this sum from those who, by their high-handedness, had exposed the State Government to this liability. It also called for the initiation of disciplinary action against the errant police officials for their negligence in not providing proper and timely medical facilities to the victim. The Commission has received intimation from the Government ofGujarat ^vith regard to the sanction \vhich was issued for payment of Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation. Negligence of a medical officer: Uttar Pradesh (Case No. 7122/24/98-99) Smt Ram Kumari, in her complaint to the Commission, stated that her husband, Shri Krishan Kumar, had died in a road accident when his truck had collided with a tree, and thereafter caught fire. The police prepared an inquest report and sent the burnt body of her husband for post-mortem to Rai Bareilly. A team of three doctors performed the autopsy of the dead body on 17 May 1998, but were unable to give an opinion on the cause and time of death, and therefore, sought the opinion of the State Medico-Legal Expert. The opinion was delayed by six months, as a result of which the complainant was made to rush from Allahabad to Rai Bareilly to plead with the authorities to hand over the remains ofher husband's dead body for performing the last rites. The complainant sought the Commission's assistance in getting the dead body released early. In response to a notice issued by the Commission, the Special Secretary (Medical), Government of Uttar Pradesh, in his letter dated 28 December 1998, admitted the delay in the submission of papers to the Medico-Legal Expert. The Medico-Legal Expert examined the case and found radio opaque shadows of metallic density, and referred the matter for examination to check for the presence of gunpowder. However, these papers remained lying around in the office for about three months. The report of the MedicoLegal Expert also indicated certain deficiencies in the inquest report, like the absence of a site-plan and photographs of the truck. After the report, the bodily remains of the deceased were re-examined on 13 January 1999, by the Chief Medical Officer, Rae Bareilly, who did not find metallic particles as indicated in the report of the Medico-Legal Expert. A supplementary report was filed by the Special Secretary (Medical), Government of Uttar Pradesh, stating that the remains of the deceased were handed over to the complainant on 15 February 1999. By a final report, dated 19 April 1999, the Commission 121