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
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:
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
Point of Law : Court in exercise of extraordinary power under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution, therefore, would not award damages against public authorities merely because they have made some....
The State has a constitutional obligation to ensure the safety of individuals in police custody; custodial deaths demand scrutiny and compensatory measures for rights violations.
The court underscored the state's liability for custodial deaths and established a precedent for compensating victims against police violence.
The court ruled that the lack of credible investigation necessitated transferring the case to an independent agency, recognizing a widow's right to justice for her husband's unlawful death.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.