SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Gau) 747

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
N. KOTISWAR SINGH, MALASRI NANDI, JJ.
Konto Warisa and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The Union of India and Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) 4368 of 2014
Decided On : 25-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :D.C.K. Hazarika, Advocate
For the Respondents:R.K.D. Choudhury, R.K. Bora, Advocate

Headnote:

Constitution Of India,1950 - Article 21, 32,226 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 - Army Act, 1950 - Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Offence of Murder - Protection of life and personal liberty - Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs - Whether findings arrived at by District & Sessions Judge are based on relevant evidences and materials or not - Whether such findings arrived at by District & Sessions Judge are the most probable view of the incident which had occurred during the period in connection with which the aforesaid F.I.R. P.S. Case under Section 302 IPC was registered qua the version put forth by the army respondents - Whether allegations made by petitioners relating to which the inquiry was ordered to be conducted, had to be proved on basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt or on the basis of preponderance of probability - Whether there are bases for the allegations made by the petitioners of the custodial torture and death of Punishment for Murder – Held, it should be left to the wisdom of the army authorities – Court aware and acknowledge the yeoman service rendered by the valiant Indian army and the security forces especially in this part of the country, in upholding the integrity of our country and in maintaining peace and harmony – Court also aware of the fact that the Indian army is a highly professional and disciplined force and as such, we would consider the aforesaid unfortunate incident to be an aberration which does not deserve to be repeated in future Therefore, rather than us giving any direction to take specific action against the erring personnel, we will leave it to the wisdom of the army authorities to do the needful as we are confident that Indian army, a highly professional and disciplined force, will take necessary domestic remedial and punitive actions, in the light of the findings in the Inquiry Report and also our observations in this judgment, keeping in mind the basic human rights and the dignity of the individuals and the security of the nation and operational sanctity of armed forces – Petition allowed

JUDGMENT :

N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

1. Heard Mr. D.C.K. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned ASGI for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. R.K. Bora, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.

2. The present petition has been filed by 2(two) petitioners, namely, Sri Konto Warisa and Sri Golom Nunisa who alleged that their sons, namely, Poresh Warisa and Sujit Nunisa, aged about 23 years, residents of Wari Lamphu village were picked up by the personnel of 12th Battalion Madras Regiment on 14.07.2009 from the said village and subsequently, were shot dead and the dead bodies brought to the Haflong Police Station on 19.07.2009.

The said Poresh Warisa has been also referred to as Pirush Warisa, and sometimes as Pirosh Warisa and Phirosh Warisa in the pleadings.

3. It was submitted that in connection with the said incident, an F.I.R. was lodged with the Dehangi Police Station by one Dimanon Kemprai. On receipt of the F.I.R., Dehangi P.S. Case No. 05/2009 dated 20.07.2009 was registered under Section 302 IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 177/2009 against the personnel of the 12th Battalion Madras Regiment, Camp at Kobak Post. However, since no progress was made for bringing the persons responsible for custodial death of the aforesaid two persons, namely, (i) Poresh Warisa and (ii) Sujit Nunisa to book, the present petition has been filed seeking for a direction for holding a judicial inquiry into the killing of the aforesaid 2(two) persons and to take appropriate action against the army personnel in accordance with law and also to award adequate monetary compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) only each to the petitioners, as follows:

    "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this petition and consider the above materials facts, call for the records, after hearing the parties be pleased to issue rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents, particularly, the Respondent No. 3 to initiate independent judicial enquiry into the killing of detenues namely, (i) Poresh Warisa, aged about 23 years, son of Sri Konto Warisa (Petitioner No. 1) and (ii) Sujit Nunisa, aged about 23 years, son of Sri Golom Nunisa (Petitioner No. 2) in the custody of the 12th Madras Regiment, C/o. 99 APO, Haflong (Respondent No. 2) during 14.07.2009 to 19.07.2009 for which Dehangi PS Case No. 05/09 dated 20.07.2009 U/S. 302 IPC corresponding GR No. 177/2009 was registered and to take appropriate actions against the Army personnel/perpetrators in accordance with law and be pleased to declare failure on the part of the Respondents to protect and safeguard the life of the son of the Petitioners and such killings by the Respondent No. 2 is illegal and unconstitutional and further direct the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to award suitable/adequate monetary compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) each to the Writ Petitioners and further pass such order/orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice."

4. According to the petitioners, from the nature of the injuries as indicated in the postmortem reports, it was very clear that the said two persons received bullet injuries which were ante-mortem in nature and death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage. It has been alleged that post-mortem reports indicate numerous marks of torture and accordingly, it was contended that the aforesaid two persons had been victims of torture and fake encounter and accordingly, the persons responsible for the death were liable for appropriate action under law and also for payment of compensation to the petitioners as mentioned above.

5. This petition has been contested mainly by the respondents No. 1 and 2 by filing their affidavit-in-opposition in which it was alleged that two persons were killed in an encounter when they hurled grenade and started firing indis

                                    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                    1
                                    2
                                    3
                                    4
                                    5
                                    6
                                    7
                                    8
                                    9
                                    10
                                    11
                                    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                    supreme today icon
                                    logo-black

                                    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                                    Please visit our Training & Support
                                    Center or Contact Us for assistance

                                    qr

                                    Scan Me!

                                    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                    whatsapp-icon Back to top