THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, ROBIN PHUKAN, JJ.
D.K. Dutta – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
CR(HC) No.16 Of 1994, CR(HC) No.17 Of 1994
Decided On : 09-03-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 109, 302, 201 - Army Act of 1950 – Section 70, 160 - Army authorities – Murder offence - Causing disappearance of evidence of offence - All persons were arrested by army authorities and till filing of petition, their whereabouts were not known and neither army authorities had informed respective families about ground of arrest - Held, Act of having caused death to 5 (five) persons did not take place while they were in custody of army personnel and conclusion of army authorities in Court Martial proceeding is that death of persons concerned would not lead to army personnel being guilty of an offence under Sections 302/201 of Indian Penal Code - Without arriving at any conclusion as to whether death was caused in a manner acceptable in law or in a manner unacceptable in law but however, as materials on record clearly indicates that death had been caused in an army operation, although materials available on record cannot lead to a definite conclusion as to whether death was caused in a manner acceptable in law or unacceptable in law and for interest of justice, Court order respondents in Union of India through army authorities to pay adequate compensation to families of five deceased persons - Petitions closed.
JUDGMENT :
(A.M. Bujor Barua, J.)
1. Heard Mr. HK Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner in CR(HC) No. 16/1994 and Mr. KN Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner in CR(HC) No. 17/1994. Also heard Mr. RKD Choudhury, learned Dy.S.G.I. for the respondents in the Union of India including the Army authorities in CR(HC) No. 16/1994 and Ms. A Gayan, learned counsel for the respondents in the Union of India including the Army authorities in CR(HC) No. 17/1994 and Ms. U Das, learned counsel for the respondents in the State of Assam.
2. Col. Mahesh Sarma, Deputy Judge Advocate General for the army authorities is also present in the hearing.
3. Although the CBI is not a respondent in the proceedings but during the course of the proceedings there was a requirement for the CBI to make an enquiry and submit a report and accordingly, a report is made available on record by means of an affidavit dated 10.03.1998 and Mr. M Haloi, learned counsel appears for the authorities in the CBI.
4. CR (HC) No. 17/1994 had been instituted by Sri Jagadish Bhuyan the then Vice President of the All Assam Students Union raising an allegation that 9 (nine) persons namely Prabin Sonowal, Adviser of the Tinsukia District Students Union, then aged about 24 years was arrested by the army authorities from his residence at Doom Dooma on 17.02.1994; Akhil Sonowal who was an employee of the Khowang Tea Estate under Talap Police Station was arrested by the army authorities on 17.02.1994 while he was discharging his duties in his office; Debajit Biswas, then aged about 23 years, who was a student, was arrested from his residence at Doom Dooma on 17.02.1994; Gunin Hazarika, then aged about 22 years who was a student, was arrested on 19.02.1994 from his residence at Doom Dooma; Pradip Dutta was arrested on 18.02.1994 from his residence at Talap Doom Dooma; Monoranjan Das was arrested on 18.02.1994 from his residence at Doom Dooma; Bhupen Moran was arrested on 17.02.1994 from his residence at Doom Dooma; Prakash Sarma was arrested on 18.02.1994 from his residence at Doom Dooma and Moteswar Moran was arrested on 19.02.1994 from his residence at Doom Dooma.
5. The petitioner raises an assertion that except for Akhil Sonowal, all other persons who were arrested were members of the All Assam Students Union.
6. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition in CR (HC) No. 17/1994 it is stated that all the persons were arrested by the army authorities between 17.02.1994 to 19.02.1994 and till the filing of the writ petition, their whereabouts were not known and neither the army authorities had informed the respective families about the ground of the arrest.
7. CR (HC) No. 16/1994 had been instituted by Sri Deepak Kumar Dutta raising the allegation that his brother Pradip Kumar Dutta had been arrested by the army authorities on 18.02.1994 from his house. We have taken note that the arrest of Pradip Kumar Dutta is also a subject matter in CR (HC) No. 17/1994.
8. In course of the proceedings on 01.03.1994, out of the 9 (nine) persons, 4 (four) persons were produced before the Court under police escort and in the order dated 01.03.1994 certain statements made in course of the proceeding held by the learned District Judge, Tinsukia, in camera, was produced before the Court which indicated that 5 (five) of the aforesaid persons namely (1) Prabin Sonowal, (2) Akhil Sonowal, (3) Debajit Biswas, (4) Pradip Dutta and (5) Bhupen Moran had died in the meantime. The other 4 (four) persons who were also arrested namely (1) Prakash Sarma, (2) Gunin Hazarika, (3) Monoranjan Das and (4) Motiswar Moran have in the meantime been released.
9. In the circumstance the two Habeas Corpus Civil Rule petitions survive for an adjudication in respect of the death that may have been caused in respect of the aforesaid 5 (five) persons. We take note that the CBI had conducted an enquiry pursuant to the orders dated 10.03.1995 and 31.07.2000 of the Court in resp
SupremeToday
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 court held a CBI investigation warranted due to significant suspicions surrounding the death of a constable, implicating senior officers in possible misconduct.
The court affirmed that membership in an unlawful assembly holds all members liable for the collective actions, even if not all directly engaged in violent acts, establishing S.302/149 liability.
Compensation is warranted when state authorities fail to protect individuals' fundamental rights, especially in cases of extrajudicial killings or custodial deaths.
Compensation for custodial death necessitates proof of unnatural death; not every death in custody qualifies under the compensation scheme.
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.