Hrishikesh Roy, J.

1. Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. R. Bora, learned Central Government counsel and Mr. R.S. Deka, learned Government Advocate, who represents the State.

2. In these 2 writ petitions custodial death of 2 persons who were in Army's custody due to unauthorized shooting by an Army Officer is alleged and appropriate inquiry by an independent agency, into the circumstances of the death is prayed for by the petitioners. Further claim for compensation has also been made in the petitions.

As common arguments have been advanced in both the cases and the incident is one and is covered by a common inquiry report submitted by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Mangaldoi, we propose to dispose of both the writ petitions, by this common order.

3. The two detained persons involved in the cases share a common name, i.e. Pratul Daimari who is the son of Sri Khalason Daimari (hereinafter referred to as the Pratul Daimari-1). Both are residents of Naoherua Village under Majbat Police Station of Darrang District.

The other Pratul Daimari is the son of Late Nahimiya Daimari and is being referred to hereinafter as "Pratul Daimari-2".

The WP(C) No. 2154/04 is filed by the father of Pratul Daimari-1 Sri Khalason Daimari.

The Petitioner in WP(C) No. 2155/04 is Smti Jyotshna Daimari who is the wife of Pratul Daimari-2.

PETITIONERS' VERSION

4. The allegations of the Petitioners with regard to the death of Pratul Daimari-1 and Pratul Daimari-2, which are relevant and are necessary for adjudication of the cases, are noted at the outset.

4.1. It is alleged that on 12.2.2004, Army personnel of 62 Field Regiment visited the house of Pratul Daimari-1 at Naoherua village and not finding him in his house, the Army personnel asked the father Sri Khalason Daimari to visit the Army Camp at Harisinga on the next day. Accordingly on 13.2.2004 the father Khalason Daimari accompanied by the village defence Secretary, visited the Army Camp, where he was asked to produce his son Pratul Daimari-1. Following day i.e. on 14.2.2004, the father took Pratul Daimari-1 to the Army Camp where the son was subjected to interrogation inside the Camp while the father was made to wait outside. Subsequently the Army released Pratul Daimari-1 and Khalason Daimari averred that he could learn from his son that the Army Authorities suspected the son to be involved with helping militants in the area and it was alleged that some militants were given food in their house. The son claimed to have stated in response that he is a student and is preparing for his BA Final Examination and he is not involved with any militants or their activities.

4.2. The father Khalason Daimari was asked to produce his son again to the Army Camp on 3.3.2004 and accordingly Pratul Daimari-1 was taken to the Camp by his father. That day Pratul Daimari-1 was detained in the Army Camp and the father was asked to take his son back the next day.

4.3. Next day when Khalason Daimari went to Harisinga Camp, he was asked by the Army Personnel, whether there is another boy by the same name (Pratul Daimari) in their village and when the Petitioner answered in the affirmative, the Army people asked Khalason Daimari (father of Pratul Daimari-1), to bring Pratul Daimari-2 to the Camp on 6.3.2004.

4.4. On 6.3.2004, Khalason Daimari reached the Harisinga Army Camp along with co-villagers Pratul Daimari-2 and his elder brother Upen Daimari. Pratul Daimari-2 was then detained in the Army Camp and Pratul Daimari-1 was released from the Army custody.

4.5. On 7.3.2004 the Army reached village Naoherua in a Tata Mobile vehicle and picked up Pratul Daimari-1 once again from his house on the plea that his signature is needed for some medical certificate and the family was informed that he would be released, after taking such signature. Then Pratul Daimari-1 was made to board the Army's Tata Mobile vehicle.

4.6. Later on, Khalason Daimari could learnt from co-villagers t