1. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been sought to be invoked by the peti­tioner, the father of the deceased Inamul Haque Choudhury who died on 20.06.2000 allegedly while he was in the custody of the police of Lakhipur Police Station, District-Cachar.

2. Admittedly, before approaching this Court the petitioner with the same grievance had moved the Assam Human Rights Com­mission (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') which by its order dated 14.06.2006 rendered in AHRC Case No. 3451/2001 on accepting the report of the Superintendent of Police (Investigation) on the episode, returned a finding that the incident was not only one of fake police encounter but demonstrated as well gross negligence of duty on the part of the police in not providing full protection to the deceased persons (peti­tioner's son being one of them). The Com­mission thereby awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- each to the next of the kin of the deceased persons by way of interim compensation to be paid by the Home Department, Government of Assam. This amount has since been paid to the petitioner.

3. We have heard Mr. M. H. Rajbar­bhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Deka, learned State counsel for the respondents.

4. The pleaded case of the petitioner in short is that the deceased was arrested at Banskandi Bazar on 19.06.2000 by the po­lice of Lakhipur P.S. and was taken into cus­tody. He at the relevant point of time was a handyman of a TATA Tanker bearing regis­tration No. AS-11-6458 and was aged 20 years. Lakhipur P.S. Case No. 168/2000 under Section 365/392IPC was also regis­tered against him on a complaint made by one Faizur Rahman Laskar. According to the pe­titioner, in the night of 19.06.2000, police personnel from Lakhipur P.S. accusing his son to be a PULF activist took him to Sonai P.S. and in the early hours of 20.06.2000 to Panichowki near Bhuben Hill in a remote jun­gle area allegedly in search of the underground to locate their whereabouts/hideout. On the next date i.e. 21.06.2000 he was asked through Sonai P.S. to identify and receive the dead body of his son who they claimed had fallen to the bullets of the extremists at village Panichowki along with one Tamiz Uddin.

5. According to the petitioner, the plea of death ofhis son in the crossfire involving PULF extremists and the police is an afterthought and it was a case of brutal cold murder ofhis son by it (police) while the deceased was in its custody. To the same effect a Memoran­dum by the local people was submitted be­fore the jurisdictional District Magistrate which was followed by a magisterial enquiry by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S) Silchar, whereafter, a report was submitted by the aforementioned State authority before the District Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar to the ef­fect that both the deceased had succumbed to the bullet injuries while they were in the company of the police of Lakhipur P. S. in the locality of Panichowki R.H. and that there was no firing from the jungle or the extrem­ists' side resulting in the same (injuries).

6. On an FIR lodged on the incident, Sonai P.S. Case No. 234/2000 was registered in which on the culmination of the investigation, final report had been submitted. It is submit­ted at the Bar that the petitioner being dissat­isfied therewith has approached the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar for redress. The learned Commission, as re­ferred to hereinabove, on a consideration, amongst others, of the report of the magiste­rial enquiry, awarded an amount of Rs. 50, 000/- as interim compensation to the peti­tioner for the untimely demise of his son in the tragic circumstances as revealed therein.

7. The common stand taken by the Deputy Commissioner and the Superin-tendent of Police, Cachar, Silchar is that after his arrest the petitioner's son in course of the investiga­tion in the related case disclosed himself along with the