The court established the liability of the state for the loss of life of a person in custody and awarded compensation to the petitioner.

T. Nandakumar Singh, J.

1. The Supreme Court and the High Courts being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also obligation to grant relief in exercise of their jurisdictions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India to the victims or heirs of the victims whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the state to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizens, notwithstanding the right of the citizens to the remedy by way of civil suit or criminal proceedings. Basing on these principles of law, petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for monetary compensation for unjustified killing of her son, late R.K. Laksana @ Vito Singh by the personnel of the Manipur Police Commando Unit under the private respondent No. 6 (i.e. Shri Pebam John Singh, S. I.) while he (R. K. Laksana @ Vito Singh) was in their custody. In the present writ petition, over and above the relief for monetary compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-, the petitioner prays for:

1. Directing the respondent No. 1, i.e. the State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur to hand over the investigation of the FIR, i.e. FIR No. 7(2)/99 Lamsang P.S., Under Section 121, 121-A, 307,302/34, IPC and 25(1-A) Arms Act, and the complaint dated 21-2-99 made by the petitioner to the O.C. Singjamei P.S. for killing of her son, late R. K. Laksana by the personnel of the Manipur Police Commando Unit, i.e. O. C. Inspector Lokhon Singh, S. I. Pebam John Singh, Annexure-A/8 to the present writ petition, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI);

2. Directing the respondents to produce the report of the enquiry conducted by the District Magistrate, Imphal West under Section 176 of Cr.P.C.; and

3. directing the respondents to make payment of Rs. l,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) as ex gratia for the death of her son.

2. The Apex Court in Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, [1984] 1 SCR 904 discussed about the nature of consideration of facts in a writ proceeding and held that "In a writ petition under Article 32 rarely, if ever, pleadings are meticulously extracted and reproduced in the judgment. It however became a compelling necessity in this case for the obvious reason that certain inferences were drawn and submitted for the consideration of this Court by both sides after referring to facts admitted and/or not controverted. We would, therefore be justified in deducing the indisputable fact situation that emerges from the rival affidavits and then proceed to draw necessary permissible inferences that flow from them". Even in the writ proceeding, it has been held that it would be justified in deducing the indisputable fact situation that emerges from the rival affidavits and then proceed to draw necessary permissible inferences that flow from them. Keeping in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India (supra), this Court is meticulously examining the facts admitted and/or not controverted by the parties vis-a-vis in the present case for drawing necessary permissible inferences that flow from them. Justice Krishnan Iyer (As he was then) was made an observation in Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, 1980 CriLJ 426. "An encounter ensued, both sides sustained injuries and the deceased succumbed to a firearm shot even as some of the police party sustained revolver wounds but survived. May be, the defence case, if reasonably true, may absolve them of the crime, although the story of encounters during arrest and unwitting injuries resulting in casualties, sometimes become a mask to hide easy liquidation of human life by heartless policemen when some one allergic to authority resists their vices. The police have the advantage that they prepare the preliminary record which may 'kill' the case against them. This disquieti