IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Smt. Shukla Saha - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tripura & Ors. - Respondents
W.P(C) NO.109 OF 2012
Decided On : 11-12-2015
Compensation - Public Law Remedy - Tripura Police Act, 2007 - Right to Life - Naga People's Movement for Human rights Vs. Union of India - D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's son was shot dead during an agitation, allegedly by the respondent No.8 or his armed personnel. The Police Accountability Commission's inquiry indicated that the death occurred from police firing. The respondents denied involvement and stated that the unruly mob led by Congress leaders was responsible for the violence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found a total collapse of law and order and a breach of public duty by the police, leading to the untimely death of the petitioner's son. The court held the State liable for compensation under public law jurisdiction, independent of private law action.
Issues: The issues revolved around the circumstances of the petitioner's son's death, the involvement of the police, and the State's liability for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the Tripura Police Act, 2007, and emphasized the right to life as a fundamental right. It referenced the Naga People's Movement for Human rights Vs. Union of India case and D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal to establish the State's liability for breach of public duty.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the State to compensate the petitioner with a sum of Rs 5,00,000 within three months, holding the State liable for the breach of public duty.
By this writ petition the petitioner, a grief-stricken mother lost his son on 11.07.2011 allegedly for fire opened by the respondent No.8 who was holding the position of Assistant Commandant, 11th Bn. of Tripura State Rifles or the personnel who accompanied him at the relevant point of time.
2. The petitioner's son, namely Papai Saha was an energetic young man. For premature death of his father, he discontinued his education and joined hands with his elder brother for running a business of steel utensils at the Hawker's Corner, Agartala. On the fateful day, the Indian National Congress(I) organised an agitation, which went berserk in front of West Agartala Police Station and suddenly it resulted in wholesome deterioration of law and order situation. The tranquil city turned turbulent within a moment. The allegation of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the wife of the respondent No.8 was purchasing some gold ornaments from a jewellery shop, called ‘Shyam Sundar Co. & Jewellery’ when the said turbulence broke out. As a result, the respondent No.8 sent the armed TSR personnel to rescue his wife from the said jewellery shop. Without any provocation they open fire from their sophisticated weapons and the youngest son of the petitioner fell prey to the bullets fired by them. When her son was taken to the GBP hospital, he was declared dead. From the post-mortem report (Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition), it is clear that petitioner's son died out of the bullet injury.
3. On 16.07.2011, having recovered from the sudden grief petitioner's elder son filed an ejahar in the West Agartala Police Station, which was initially reluctant to register any case. However, later on West Agartala P.S. Case No.235 of 2011 under Section 302/34 of the IPC was registered against unknown TSR personnel. The petitioner has also averred that the Police Accountability Commission, Tripura inquired into that police action suo motu and the order dated 08.08.2011 passed in suo motu complaint No.14 of 2011 was sent to the Director General of Police, Government of Tripura, Agartala. The said order dated 08.08.2011 has been signed by all the members of the Commission and its Chairman. On the basis of certain media reports about the mob-violence and the police firing on 11.07.2011 around Kaman Chowmuhani area, Agartala, which resulted in the death of one Papai Saha, the son of the petitioner, aged 20 years, the Commission took up an inquiry as they were prima facie satisfied that the said incident required to be inquired into. According to their report, there are prima facie evidence to take a view that Papai Saha sustained fatal bullet injuries from a gunshot by a member of the police force. The said order dated 08.08.2011 has observed inter alia, as under:
“Right to life is a basic human right preserved by our constitution as fundamental right. Infringement of that right is a major misconduct within the meaning of section 66(2) of the Tripura Police Act, 2007 calling for an inquiry by the Commission. Hence this inquiry.
We have not officially received any information from police as to whether any regular investigation into the death of Papai Saha has been set in motion. We believe it has been done. If not we direct that it should be done immediately.
While it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the police to investigate into the occurrence find out and prosecute the person responsible for the alleged offence, the job of the Commission is to see whether the police did act within the limits of the law wherefrom it derives its powers, the accountability of the police being to the rule of law only.
As regards the decision to open fire, the Supreme Court has laid down certain important guidelines in Naga People's Movement for Human rights Vs. Union of India. It is fact that the police in India to-day have to perform a difficult task particularly in deteriorating law and order situation, political turmoil, student unrest, communal riots and terroris
Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera vs. State of Orissa reported in 1993 (2) SCC 746
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.