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

2026 Supreme(Gau) 226

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, RAJESH MAZUMDAR, JJ.
Anil Narzary, S/o. L T. Deubar Narzary - Petitioner 
Versus
The Union of India, Rep. By Secretary Defence, Govt. of India and Ors. – Respondents 
WP(C) No.1098 of 2017
Decided On : 08-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Choudhury.
For the Respondents: Mr. D. Nath, Sr. Govt. Adv., Mr. B. Deka, CGC.

Compensation is warranted when state authorities fail to protect individuals' fundamental rights, especially in cases of extrajudicial killings or custodial deaths.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 120

(B) and 302 - Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner sought an impartial investigation following the alleged custodial death of his brother occurring on 28.12.2016 during a police operation. The deceased was said to be involved in illegal activities related to arms dealing per state reports. Disputed narratives of the incident led to concerns of a fake encounter involving indirect police and army action. Court evaluated the integrity of the investigations conducted and awarded compensation for violations of fundamental rights under Article 21. (Paras 33-35)

(B) Right to compensation - Established principle that victims’ families should be compensated when fundamental rights are infringed. Court directed payments to both the wife and children of the deceased, recognizing the long duration of litigation and loss incurred. (Paras 35-38)

Facts of the case:
The writ petition arose after Ratan Narzary was killed in a purported encounter with state authorities, with conflicting accounts about his involvement in illegal arms transactions. The petition sought neutral inquiry due to perceived biases in conducted investigations. The family of the deceased claimed his death resulted from a fake encounter. (Paras 1-5)

Findings of Court:
The investigations revealed failures in timely action based on intelligence, leading to unnecessary loss of life. The court mandated compensation as a remedy for the infringement of fundamental rights, noting procedural oversights in the conduct of the police operation. (Paras 30-34)

Issues: The key issues included whether due process was followed in the encounter, the adequacy of conducted investigations, and the right to compensation for the deceased's family. (Paras 8-9)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that due diligence from state authorities could have prevented the encounter, resulting in a breach of Article 21 rights. Compensation was warranted based on established rights violations. (Paras 33-34)

Result: Writ petition allowed; respondents ordered to pay compensation to the deceased's family.

Table of Content
1. case background on the death of ratan narzary. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. details of investigations and conflicting narratives. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments for impartial investigation and compensation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. arguments from the state regarding investigation validity. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. court observations on the investigation's thoroughness. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. court finds infringement of article 21 requiring compensation. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
7. awarding compensation to the family of ratan narzary. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Mazumdar, J.

Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. B. Deka, learned CGC for the Union of India.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who claims to be the brother of one Ratan Narzary, who was killed in an encounter with the police authorities on 28.12.2016. The prayers, which have been pressed during hearing of the writ petition are for entrusting the investigation into the unnatural death of the brother of the petitioner to an impartial and neutral agency and for an enquiry by the concerned District and Sessions Judge and also for payment of compensation to the family of the deceased for causing the death of the brother of the petitioner while in custody.

At the outset, it is important to note that while the Writ petition was initiated on the premise that the brother of the petitioner had been illegally taken into custody by the state authorities and thereafter had been put to death, the case projected by the respondents is that the brother of the petitioner was killed in an ambush laid by the state authorities when he was trying to deal illegally in arms and ammunition with underground militant outfits.

Case projected in the writ petition.

2. As per the projection made in the writ petition, the deceased Ratan Nazari was a cultivator by profession who resided in the District of Chirang and his family consisted of his wife and three children. On the early hours of 28.12.2016, the wife of the deceased was informed that her husband had been killed by the Indian Army in a fake encounter at a place under the jurisdiction of Bismuri police outpost under the Kokrajhar Police Station in the district of Kokrajhar. The family members thereafter rushed to Kokrajhar Police Station where, after completion of formalities including post mortem, the mortal remains were handed over to the members of the petitioner’s family.

3. With regard to the aforesaid incident, the In-charge of the Bishmuri police outpost, namely Sub Inspector Ritu Jyoti Nath, had lodged an FIR on 28.12.2016 before the Officer-in-Charge of the Kokrajhar Police Station to the effect that a joint operation was led by the then Additional Superintendent of Police (Head Quarter), Kokrajhar, and comprising of the informant along with other police personnel and the 7th Sikh Light Infantry Army personnel on 28.12.2016 at about 0130 hours in the general area of Laopani Jungle. The FIR further quoted that an ambush was laid on two strategic points. It was further quoted that at about 0520 hours, 3 or 4 suspected NDFB cadre personnel arrived with sophisticated weapons. On being asked to stop, the miscreants opened indiscriminate fire from their weapons. The police team opened retaliatory fire. After the firing had stopped, on a cautious search, a severely injured militant was found lying in the jungle while the other cadre members had managed to escape. The FIR further quoted that the injured militant was evacuated to a civil hospital in Kokrajhar, where he was declared brought dead at 0658 hours.

4. Simultaneously, the wife of the deceased lodged an FIR at about 2230 hours on 28.12.2016 before the In Charge of the Bengtol outpost which fell under the jurisdiction of Runikata Police station in the Chirang district. In the FIR, it was alleged that on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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