1 CGHC010061002021 2026:CGHC:39455 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1440 of 2021 1 - Ramlal Vishvakarma S/o Firtu Vishvakarma Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Girodpuri, Tehsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh), District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Upper Collector Balodabazar-Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tehsildar Tehsil Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Girodpuri Post Girodpuri, Police Station Gidhouri Tundra, Tehsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.09.10 17:49:22 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate. For State : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, P.L. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/09/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 28.07.2020 passed by the Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, whereby the petitioner's application preferred under Part VI, Serial No. 4 of the Revenue Book Circular, seeking compensation on account of the death of his son, namely Shivkumar Vishwakarma, was rejected. The said order was passed pursuant to the order dated 03.07.2020 passed by the Additional Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, as well as the order dated 22.06.2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara. The petitioner's son, who was stated to be of unsound mind, died due to drowning in Lorik Band Lake situated at Girodpuri, Tehsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara. The petitioner has also called in question the consequential action and inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in the matter. The petitioner is seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 Call for the entire records pertaining to the present case. 3 10.2 Issue a Writ of Mandamus & hold that the Order dated 28.07.2020 passed by Respondent No. 1 is bad in law. 10.3 Issue a Writ of Mandamus & quash and set aside all the subsequent Orders passed in pursuance of the impugned Order dated 28.07.2020 (Annexure- P-1). 10.4 Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent authorities to grant compensation/financial assistance in accordance to Part 6 S.No. 4 of Revenue Book Circular. 10.5 Grant the cost of the petition to the petitioner. 10.6 Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, despite the petitioner's entitlement to compensation under the provisions of the Revenue Book Circular on account of the death of his son, namely Shivkumar Vishwakarma, due to drowning, the same has not been extended to him. It is contended that, from a perusal of the morgue intimation as well as the post-mortem report, it is evident that the cause of death of the deceased was opined by the doctor to be drowning. Despite the aforesaid material being available on record, the respondent authorities have arbitrarily declined to grant the compensation payable to the petitioner under the Revenue Book Circular. 4 3. Learned State counsel, opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the deceased, namely the petitioner's son, was suffering from epilepsy and, from a perusal of the documents available on record, it appears that his death was attributable to epilepsy and not to accidental drowning. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner was rightly denied compensation under the Revenue Book Circular. He would further submit that, in cases of suspected death by drowning, a specific medical examination, namely the “Diatom Test”, is required to ascertain the cause of death. Since no such test was conducted in the present case, the claim of the petitioner that the deceased died due to drowning cannot be accepted and, consequently, no compensation can be granted on that basis. It is further submitted that, in the course of the morgue enquiry, the petitioner himself stated that his deceased son, namely Shivkumar Vishwakarma, was of unsound mind. On this ground also, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to claim compensation under the relevant provisions of the Revenue Book Circular. 4. The Division Bench of this Court, in the matter of Mubarak Ali v. State of Chhattisgarh, decided in Criminal Appeal No. 646 of 2019, has dealt with the issue in question in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the judgment which held as under:- “(11)In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 24th Edition 2011, diatom test has been defined as under:- “(f) Diatom Test: Finding of diatoms by 5 microscopic examination of tissues like brain, liver or bone marrow from the femur or humerus, after acid digestion is also helpful in confirming death from drowning. Diatoms are a class of tiny unicellular algae of different shapes found in fresh or seawater. There are about 15,000 types of diatoms of which half are found in fresh water and the rest in seawater. They may be fan shaped (stellate), ribbon like and seen singly or in groups. They vary in size from 2m-1.0 millimeter, the usual size being 10.80m. They have hard siliceous, almost indestructible outer covering (frustule) and can pass through the alveolar valls of the lungs of a living person to the brain, liver and bone marrow. The diatom flora of the samples of water from the site of immersion must be carefully collected with special technique and compared with those found from the body to get a reliable report. Learned author has further stated that diatom test has certain limitations like diatoms could have been inhaled or ingested with material containing diatoms before death or aspirated water containing diatoms or contamination of the glassware and reagents that are used to detect diatoms. Limitation of diatom test has been stated as under:- • Diatoms can also be inhaled • Ingestion of material containing diatoms • Aspiration of water containing diatoms • Contamination of the glassware and reagents that are used to detect diatoms. (12) The Orissa High Court in the matter of Adi Bhumiani v. State 1 relying upon Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology has held that in the case of death by drowning, asphyxia is a common cause in the majority of cases, as water getting into the lungs gets churned up with 1 AIR 1957 ORISSA 216 6 air and mucus, and produces a fine froth which blocks the air vesicles. (13) Thereafter, this Court in the matter of Pawan Kumar Pandey v. State of C.G.2 has held qua diatom test as under:- “25. When a body is recovered from water, there is usually a suspicion whether it was a case of ante-mortem or post-mortem drowning i.e. whether the body was drowned before or after death. To diagnose the cause of death in such cases, the diatom test is conducted. However, the diatom test is not confirmatory because diatom could be detected in the post-mortem drowning, if the same water in which the body was found was drunk by the deceased before the death. As per Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Edition, water may not be present in the stomach, if the person died from sudden cardiac arrest or became unconscious immediately after falling into water, so that he could not struggle and swallow water in the act of drowning. It further says that the typical signs of drowning are seen only in the body of drowned person when it is removed from water within a few hours after death and examined immediately.” 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as the material available on record, In light of the above-cited judgments and the settled position of law regarding the evidentiary value of the diatom test in cases of alleged death by drowning, it is evident that the said test may provide corroborative material for determining whether the deceased died due to ante-mortem drowning; however, the absence of a diatom test, coupled with other circumstances appearing from the record, assumes significance while 2 2018(2) C.G.L.J. 99 (DB) 7 considering a claim founded upon death by drowning. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the deceased Shivkumar Vishwakarma was recovered from water; however, during the course of the morgue intimation, the petitioner himself has categorically stated that his son was of unsound mind and, in view of such specific assertion, a serious doubt arises as to whether the deceased died on account of drowning or due to any other cause attributable to his alleged unsoundness of mind. In such circumstances, in order to arrive at a conclusive finding with regard to the actual cause of death and, more particularly, to ascertain whether the deceased had died due to drowning, the conduct of a conclusive medical examination, including the “Diatom Test”, assumes significance. The contention of the petitioner that it was the duty of the concerned Investigating Officer to get the “Diatom Test” conducted, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is of no assistance to him, particularly when the very cause of death is shrouded in doubt and it is yet to be conclusively established whether the deceased died due to drowning or for any other reason connected with his alleged unsoundness of mind. Accordingly, the aforesaid contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Further, the requisite diatom test, which could have furnished corroborative scientific material regarding death by drowning, was admittedly not conducted, and thus there is no scientific evidence on record which could conclusively or 8 corroboratively establish that the deceased died due to ante- mortem drowning. The post-mortem report, by itself, cannot be treated as sufficient proof of death by drowning in the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly when the scientific test which could have provided corroborative material regarding drowning was not conducted. The principles laid down in the judgments referred to above also indicate that the diatom test itself is not conclusive and has certain limitations; nevertheless, its absence assumes relevance where the claimant seeks to establish a claim for compensation specifically on the ground that the deceased died due to drowning. Therefore, considering the material available on record as a whole, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to establish, by reliable and cogent material, that the death of Shivkumar Vishwakarma was caused by drowning so as to bring the case within the ambit of the relevant provisions of the Revenue Book Circular. Consequently, the claim for compensation cannot be accepted merely on the basis of the post-mortem report. 6. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the competent authority has rightly declined the petitioner's claim for grant of compensation. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 9 7. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju