Jasti Chelameswar, J.

1. Heard Ms. M Deb, learned Counsel appearing for he petitioner. Also heard Ms. B Goyal, learned Govt. Advocate who represents the State respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking direction of the Court for conducting an enquiry into the killing of the petitioner's son Prakash Deka @ Mridul who was killed in police firing on 8-8-2007 and also for directions for paying compensation to the petitioner and for taking appropriate actions against the guilty police officers.

3. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, counter affidavit on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldoi of Darrang District is filed.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's son died on account of police firing, while he was driving accompanied by six others and proceeding in a Maruti Van. It is not in the dispute that in the process one of the other passengers Smti Gita Kalita also sustained a bullet injury in her leg. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle driven by the son of the petitioner was involved in a hit and run, accident a little before the police firing incident and the concerned vehicle was being driven at great speed to escape the mob which chased the vehicle after the vehicle driven by the son of the petitioner ran over a bicyclist, namely, Jiaul Haque (aged 13 years) at Maroi, who was killed by the said accident and which led to registration of Sipajhar P S Case No. 120/97.

5. The respondents do not dispute that the petitioner's son died on account of the police firing and also that Smti Gita Kalita received a bullet injury. The explanation by the respondents is that a police 'naka' party was deployed to check vehicle on the spot on the eve of the independence day particularly in the concerned area where extremists are known to be active. The vehicle driven by the deceased was asked to stop by the said police party near Burha Police Outpost. The vehicle was not stopped or momentarily stopped only to be driven away and the police personnel in order to stop the vehicle resorted to fire resulting in the death of the petitioner's son and injury to Smti Gita Kalita.

6. Ms. M Deb, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the police could have fired at the tyres of the vehicle to stop it from escaping and there was no need to resort to fire to kill the driver of the vehicle.

7. It appears that the State ordered a Magisterial enquiry into the incident. From the statement of witnesses recorded in the inquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the vehicle driven by the deceased had knocked down a minor boy because of which the front glass of the Maruti Van was broken. Thereafter the Maruti Van was chased by the local public and the deceased in order to escape the mob fury, drove the vehicle at a great speed. The police, who were deployed as 'naka' and were on alert because of the extremists activities in the area on the eve of the Independence Day, signaled the vehicle to stop. But even the witnesses who were traveling in the vehicle, namely, Witness No. 7, Nayanmoni Kalita, Witness No. 8, Trinkul Kr. Das, Witness No. 9, Jugal Nath, Witness No. 14, Smti Gita Kalita, Witness No. 15, Smti Rakhi Kalita and Witness No. 16, Smti Nimi Das indicated that the deceased tried to flee away from the police. In fact, the witnesses, who were traveling in the vehicle indicated that the deceased slowed down the vehicle without stopping the engine but suddenly he tried to speed away disregarding the police signal to bring the vehicle a halt. The report of such an enquiry is placed before us. In the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the statements given by the witnesses were noted and other evidence were considered. The inquiry finding is noted as follows:

F) Findings:- If we serialize the incidents taking place, the following points come out clearly:

1. An accident occurred at Maroi resulting in the death of one boy.

2. Public tried to attack and detain the vehicle after the accide