Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. Since the subject matter of both the writ petitions are identical, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Though judgment was to be delivered on 27.05.2013, judgment could not be delivered on that date as this Bench was not available. Accordingly, the judgment is being delivered today.

2. The facts of the two cases portray a disturbing picture. On the one hand is the depredations of the terrorists and on the other hand is the failure of the State to provide security and relief to the victims and their dependents.

3. A brief narration of the facts is considered necessary.

WP (Crl.) No. 27/2010

4. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to produce the son of the petitioner Rajesh Ranka, who remains untraced since 7.10.2007.

5. According to the petitioner, his son Rajesh Ranka, aged about 35 years, was serving as Mohorar in a saw mill in the district of Dima Hasao (NC Hills), Assam. On 6.10.2007, he was reportedly kidnapped by some unknown persons. First information was lodged before the Lanka Police Station on 11.10.2007. On 12.10.2007, a call was received by the employer of Rajesh Ranka, demanding ransom. Police was informed in this regard on 15.10.2007. Petitioner could gather that his son was kept confined in the house of a Gaon Burah at Diyung village. He informed this to the Diyung Police Station on 13.10.2007 but police failed to take any steps to rescue his son. Petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application dated 17.10.2008 before the Superintendent of Police, Dima Hasao (NC Hills) seeking his intervention. Similar applications were made to the Deputy Commissioner of the district as well as to the Director General of Police, Assam, but there was no response.

6. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

7. After a number of adjournments, affidavit dated 1.9.2011 was filed by the Superintendent of Police, Dima Hasao (NC Hills) stating that efforts were being made to find out clues of the victim. Another affidavit was filed on 29.11.2011 by the Superintendent of Police stating that in the course of investigation, information was received that Rajesh Ranka was abducted by unknown extremists on 6.10.2007 and was killed along with the other abducted persons. Their bodies were buried in a jungle near Dismaihadi village. Acting on such information, police carried out search operation and recovered skeletons of human bones from a place which was 5 kms. away from Dismaihadi village. It was stated that further investigation was on to find out clues of the victim and the abductors.

8. This Court by order dated 27.2.2012 expressed its disappointment at the way the police authorities were functioning. The Court observed that if a person is kidnapped and murdered, it is difficult to appreciate why investigation should take more than 4(four) years. What clues will be found after 4(four) years and how evidence will be traced out regarding the accused? Further observing that it is the constitutional duty of the State to evolve appropriate monitoring mechanism for speedy investigation so that investigation is not delayed for such a long period as in the present case, this Court directed holding of a review meeting at the level of Home Secretary and Director General of Police to evolve a mechanism to ensure speedy investigation and monitoring of such investigation at appropriate levels fixing outer time limit, indicating consequences for not completing investigation within the target period. Apart from the above, this Court found that as per stand taken by the State, Rajesh Ranka, who is missing since 6.10.2007, has been found to have been killed, though the circumstances in which he was killed and those responsible for such kidnapping and murder have not been identified. Keeping in view the mandate of Section 357-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, this Court held the petitioner, who is the father of the victim Rajesh Ranka, to be entitled to compensation with