Compensation can be imposed on the State where the breach of fundamental right to life is involved, and the petitioner, being an ordinary person, was entitled to compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Kh. Nobin Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri Kh. Athouba, Addl. PP/Addl. GA and Shri S. Suresh, learned ASG appearing for the Union of India.

2. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the respondents to give adequate compensation for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh) only to the petitioner for illegal activities committed by the law enforcing machineries of the respondents by killing her husband in a fake encounter.

3.1 Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is a widow of late Shri Th. Kirankumar Singh who was, during his lifetime, doing some small business to earn the livelihood of his family including his old aged father and three children.

3.2 On 20.03.2008, at around 12.30 p.m., while the petitioner was attending to her 3rd child (a baby boy), her husband returned home (temporary residence) at Nagamapal Kangjabi Leirak, Imphal along with one of his friends, Shri Bhubon. After having her lunch and while her husband was trying to change his shirt, a team of Police Commandos came at her residence and took him away with them, for which no arrest memo was given to her. When the petitioner asked about it, the Police Commandos replied that they wanted to have a talk with her husband. The Police Commandos came in two Maruti Gypsy vehicles. At around 1:00 p.m. when her father-in-law returned home, the petitioner told him about it and he immediately went to the Imphal Police Station to enquire about it with only information being given by the Police that they had not received any information about the arrest of her husband.

3.3 On the next day i.e. 21.03.2008, the petitioner's father-in-law along with his neighbours searched the where-about of her husband but in vain. On being suggested by some of the neighbours, they went to the Morgue of the RIMS Hospital where they found the dead body of her husband. On enquiry, the petitioner learnt that the Police Commandos, Imphal East District submitted a report to the O.C. Lamlai Police Station stating that on 20.03.2008 at about 2:00 p.m. an encounter took place at Kangla Siphai area of the Imphal East District between the combined team of the Commandos, Imphal East District and 39th Assam Rifles on the one hand and some unknown persons on the other hand. After the encounter was over, one person was found shot dead at the spot, from whose possession two letters of Special Finance Team, KYKL and one 9 mm pistol with 4(four) live round were found and the same were seized by them by observing the formalities in the presence of the witnesses. Thereafter, the dead body, along with the seized articles, was handed over to the Lamlai Police Station for taking necessary action. On the strength of the said report, the OC Lamlai Police Station, Imphal East District registered a case under FIR No. 45(3)08 LLI-PS U/S. 307/34 IPC-25(1-C) A-Act on 20.03.2008 and as per the said FIR the name of the informant/complainant was stated to be Havildar L. Rameshwor with No. 0696109 of CDO/IE.

3.4 The case of the petitioner was that her husband was not killed in an encounter which was alleged to have taken place on 20.03.2008 at Kangla Siphai Awang Leikai but in fact, he had been picked up from the petitioner's temporary residence at Nagamapal Kangjabi Leirak, Imphal by a team of Police Commandos who came in two Gypsy vehicles at around 12:30 pm and had been killed in cold blood/fake encounter by the combined team of the personnel of the Police Commandos (IE) and 39th Assam Rifles. The petitioner's husband was doing small business to run his family and was never involved in any anti national/anti social activities and moreover, he did not have any criminal case record. The right to life of her husband was deprived of by the respondents in complete violation of the provisions of Article 21 of the constitution.

4. Whi