The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforceable right to compensation for the unlawful deprivation of life, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.

Aftab H. Saikia, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as Mr. D. Barua, learned Central Government Counsel (for short; the CGC) representing the Union of India/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Also heard Mr. P.S. Deka, the learned State Counsel on behalf of the State of Assam/Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

2. The case, in brief, is that the incident happened on 9.1.2001 when the husband of the Petitioner one Khagen Daimary accompanied by his wife and daughters went to attend the Shradha ceremony of his brother Santi Narzary, who was killed by the Army to his brother's house at Amguri. On that day at about 11.30 p.m., the army personnel surrounded the said house and thereafter, the said Khagen Daimary (hereinafter referred to as, 'the deceased') was taken to nearby paddy field by the army, and was killed by the army suspecting him to be an NDFB militant. His dead body was sent to Mangaldai Civil Hospital for post-mortem examination. The said deceased was a cultivator and at the time of his death he left behind his wife, the Petitioner herein, two minor daughters aged about two years and three months respectively and his old mother.

3. By filing this writ petition, the Petitioner has sought for a direction to the Respondents to conduct a judicial enquiry to find out the cause of the death of her husband and thereafter to order for payment of compensation for the death of her husband in the circumstances noticed above.

4. This Court while entertaining this writ petition for its hearing, by order dated 5.3.2003 directed the learned District Judge, Darrang to conduct summary enquiry allowing opportunities to the parties concerned and to submit his report within 60 days. In compliance of the aforesaid order, an enquiry was held by the learned District Judge, Darrang and a report dated 14.9.2004 thereof was placed before this Court for its perusal and consideration.

5. A copy of the said report had also been served upon the learned CGC, who, on the instruction of the Respondents, filed objection against the said report alleging that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the army-official Respondents.

6. Having considered such objection, this Court vide order dated 6.1.2005 held that the said enquiry report could not be accepted as the said enquiry was conducted without any notice to the Union of India/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and remitted the matter to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi to afford an opportunity to the Union of India to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioner or other Respondents, if any. It was also directed by the said order that the Enquiry Officer should also allow the Union of India to lead their evidence, if any and thereafter a fresh enquiry report be submitted to this Court. In compliance of the said order dated 6.1.2005, the District and Sessions Judge, Mangaldoi conducted the enquiry afresh by affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and cross-examination of the witnesses examined on behalf of the parties to the Union of India/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

7. The learned District Judge, having completed the enquiry in term of the Hon'ble High Court's direction dated 6.1.2005 and upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties as well as having appreciated the testimony of witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioner and the Union of India came to the conclusion that the deceased was picked up by the army personnel from the house of Santi Narzary and thereafter he was taken to nearby paddy field where he was killed by the army personnel. To this effect, the learned District Judge submitted the enquiry report dated 4.5.2006 before this Court. The copy of the said report dated 4.5.2006 was also served upon the Union of India/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 through the learned CGC who again preferred an objection dated 4.12.2007 alleging that there were some glaring contradictions in the said report and set out as