T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
1. Heard Mr. I. Lalitkumar Singh, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S. Niranjan Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. Th. Ibohal Singh, learned G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 as well as Mr. C. Kamal Singh, learned CGSC for the respondents 5 and 6.
2. The fact, stated in short, of the petitioner's case is that the petitioner is the mother of one late Khumanthem Jugindro alias Jayendra Singh who was arrested by the personnel of 16th Sikh Regiment on 27-1-1998 and died due to torture by the personnel of the 16th Sikh Regiment while he was in their custody. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking for directions to the respondents:
(1) to pay adequate amount of compensation and ex-gratia for causing custodial death of late Khumanthem Jugindro Singh alias Jayendra Singh;
(2) to issue a direction to make an inquiry into the case by a competent court and to punish the wrongs if the need arises;
(3) to pass any order or orders or direction to the respondents which the Hon'ble Court may deem it fit, proper and just in the nature of the present case;
(4) to direct the respondents to pay the cost of compensation.
3. It is stated that the petitioner's son, late Khumanthem Jugindro Singh alias Jayendra Singh was arrested by the personnel of the 16th Sikh Regiment along with one of his friends, namely Sapam Boby alias Binoy, s/o S. Priyokumar Singh of Singjamei Sapam Leikai, Imphal on 27-1-1998 at about 5.30 p.m. from the road of Kongba Nandeibam Liekai, Imphal which is situated at a stone's throw distance from the house of the petitioner. On the next day of the arrest, i.e. on 28-1-1998, both the arrestees, i.e. the petitioner's son and his friend, Shri S. Boby, were handed over by the personnel of the 16th Sikh Regiment to the Singjamei Police Station at about 5.30 p.m. along with the report alleging that they are the members of the underground organization, namely UNLF and on a definite information both the persons, i.e. the petitioner's son and his friend S. Boby Singh, were napped and apprehended on 27-1-1998 at about 22 hours at Kongba Nandeibam Leikai. Accordingly, O. C. Singjamei Police Station registered as F.I.R. case No. 21(1) 98 Singjamei Police Station under Sections 471/468/420/409/120-B, IPC and 131(1)(C)(D) PC Act, 1988 13 UA (P) Act. On the next day, they were produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal by the police personnel of the Singjamei P. S. and remanded them into Police Custody up to 2-2-1998.
4. While the petitioner's son was in Police custody, he was admitted at the J. N. Hospital, Porompat by the Police personnel of the Singjam P. S. on 31-1-1998 at about 7 a.m. for treatment of his injuries. But on the next day, i.e. on 1-2-1998 at about 4.30 p.m. the petitioner's son died in the Hospital due to the renal, heart and lung failure. The dead body of the petitioner's son was sent to the RIMS Morgue, Imphal for post mortem examination and the post mortem examination was conducted by Prof. Dr. L. Fimate on 2-2-1998 at the RIMS Morgue and prepared a detailed post mortem report. According to the post mortem report, the cause of the death of the petitioner's son was due to the result of blunt multiple force on the body and there after UD case No. 2/ 98 Lamphel Police Station was registered.
5. The petitioner's son, late Kh. Jugindro Singh alias Jayendra Singh was a goldsmith by profession and also stated that he is an innocent citizen and he was looking after the petitioner's family comprising of his small brother and sister along with the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner's son was supposed to get married on 17-2-1998 with Miss Chongtham Mirabai Devi, D/o Ch. Amujab Singh of the same locality. But due to the unjustified, inhuman and cruel actions, such as tortures by the personnel of the 16th Sikh Regiment at their custody, life of the petitioner's son was cut short at prime age inasmuch as the petitioner's son was aged about only 18 years when he was arrested by the personnel of the 16th Sikh Regiment. Because of such illegal actions for depriving the life of the petitioner's son, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for the reliefs indicated above.
6. The respondent No. 6, the Commanding Officer, 16th Sikh Regiment, C/o, 99 APO filed his affidavit-in-opposition in the present writ petition. In his affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent No. 6 admitted the fact of arrest of petitioner's son along with his friend, Sapam Boby Singh on 27-1-1998 at about the Kongba Nandeibam Leikai but the respondent No. 6 denied the allegation that the petitioner's son was tortured while he was in their custody and he died due to such torture. In order to ascertain the real fact leading to the death of the petitioner's son, this Court passed an order dated 12-5-2000 directing the learned District Judge, Manipur East to conduct an inquiry and submit a report within a period of 4 (four) months and also parties shall appear and produce necessary documents before the learned District Judge to conduct inquiry and also that the learned District Judge may examine witnesses and peruse the documents and thereafter submit the report,
7. In compliance with the order of this Court dated 12-5-2000, the learned District Judge, Manipur East for holding an inquiry, framed two issues, viz.
(1) What are the facts and circumstances leading to the death of Khumathem Jugindro alias Jayendra Slngh while In custody?
(2) Was the death caused due to ill-treatment and third degree method subjected by the army personnel and the police or either by the army personnel or the police personnel?
For deciding such 2 (two) issues, the learned District Judge examined 3 (three) witnesses, i.e. PW1, Khumanthem Ongbi Pangabam Ningol Ibemhal Devi (the present writ petitioner); PW2, Kshetrimayum Iboton Singh and PW3, Sapam Bobbi Singh (i.e. who was arrested along with the son of the present petitioner), for the petitioner. 9 (nine) witnesses, i.e. RW1, Ningthoujam Manimohon Singh, Inspector (O. C. Singjamei P. S.), RW2, Dr. Thoudam Hemachandra Singh (Medical Officer of J.N. Hospital, Porompat), RW3, Soibam Ibocha Singh (S.P. Imphal West); RW4, Dr. L. Fimate, Professor (who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the petitioner's son); RW5, Oinam Mangoljao Singh, S.I., Lamphal P. S.; RW6, A. Khellendro Singh, S.I. of the Singjamei P.S., RW 7, N. Iboyaima Singh, ASI of Singjamei P.S. and I.O. of the connected FIR case; RW 8, Ningthoujam Surjit Singh (Executive Magistrate, Imphal East who conducted inquest over the dead body of the petitioner's son); and RW9, O. Mohendro Singh (Medical Officer) who was posted at Casualty and Accident Clearance Center, Imphal for respondents 1 to 4 and 3 witnesses, i.e. (1) Subedar Major Mohendro Singh (who was serving in the 16th Sikh Regiment Bn. 'A' Company at Lamphelpat, Manipur from December 1997 till May 1998); (2) Subedar Lakhwinder Singh (who was serving in the 16th Sikh Regiment Bn. 'A' Company at Lamphelpat and who handed over the petitioner's son and his friend, S. Bobby Singh to the Singjamei Police Station), and (3) Havildar Jasbir (who was serving in the 16th Sikh Regiment 'A' Company at Lamphelpat and amongst the parties of the army personnel who apprehended the petitioner's son and his friend).
8. Regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that it is not required to discuss time and again inasmuch as this Court in a number of cases, viz:
(1) Shri Ranjan Gogol v. Union of India and 7 Ors. 1995 (II) GLT384 (D/B);
(2) Shri Kangujam Ongbi Devi v. State of Manipur and Ors. 1999 (2) GLT 202 : 1999 Cri LJ 3584;
(3) Terarongsen and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2003(1) GLT 218;
(4) Tarulata Devi v. State of Assam and Ors. 2001 (2) GLT 419: and
(5) Kaisiliangmai (Th) v. Union of India and Ors. 2005 (1) GLT 185 : AIR 2005 Gauh 116 and other cases.
held that the writ petition of the present nature is maintainable. For the sake of repetition, this Court again repeats that for remedy in public law actions, the Court can invoke 'new tools' arid mould remedy to provide redressal in the case of deprivation of fundamental right like that under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also that award of compensation in proceedings for enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 32 and 226 is the remedy available in public law. The Apex Court in Nilabatl Bahera (Smt) @ Lalita Behera (Through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) v. State of Orisa and Ors. 1993 Cri LJ 2899, Paras 32 to 34 held:
33. The old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to the remedies available in civil law limits the role of the Courts too much as protector and guarantor of the indefeasible rights of the citizens. The Courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the Courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations.
34. The public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. The relief or monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in proceedings under Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts, for established infringement of the indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law and is based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights. Therefore, when the Court moulds the relief by granting 'compensation' in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the public law by way of penalizing the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be understood, as it is generally understood in a civil action for damages under the private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making 'monetary amends' under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty, of not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen. The compensation is in the nature of 'exemplary damages' awarded against the wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a Court of competent jurisdiction or/and prosecute the offender under the penal law.
35. The Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and Jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of Its Jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings. The State, of course has the right to be indemnified by and take such action as may be available to it against the wrong doer in accordance with law - through appropriate proceedings. Of course, relief in exercise of the power under Article 32 or 226 would be granted only once it is established that there has been an infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizen and no other form of appropriate redressal by the Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, is possible. The decisions of this Court in the line of cases starting with Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar 1983 Cri LJ 1644 granted monetary relief to the victims for deprivation of their fundamental rights in proceedings through petitions filed under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the rights available under the civil law to the aggrieved party where the Courts found that grant of such relief was warranted. It is a sound policy to punish the wrongdoer and it is in that spirit that the Courts have molded the relief by granting compensation to the victims in exercise of their writ jurisdiction. In doing so the Courts take into account not only the interest of the applicant and the respondent but also the interests of the public as a whole with a view to ensure that public bodies or officials do not act unlawfully and do perform their public duties properly particularly where the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 is concerned. Law is in the process of development and the process necessitates developing separate public law procedures as also public law principles. It may be necessary to identify the situations to which separate proceedings and principles apply and the Courts have to act firmly but with certain amount of circumspection and self-restraint, lest proceedings under Article 32 or 226 are misused as a disguised substitute for civil action in private law. Some of those situations have been identified by this Court in the cases referred to by Brother Verma, J.
9. Again the Apex Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal : 1997CriLJ743 held (Paras 44 and 45):
44. The claim in public law for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty, the protection of which is guaranteed under the Constitution, is a claim based on strict liability and is in addition to the claim available in private law for damages for tortuous acts of the public servants. Public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. Award of compensation for established Infringement of the Indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and preserved. Grant of compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the established violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 is an exercise of the Courts under the public law Jurisdiction for penalizing the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen.
45. The old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to the remedies available in civil law limits the role of the Courts too much, as the protector arid custodian of the indefeasible rights of the citizens. The Courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the Courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. A Court of law cannot close its consciousness and alive-ness to stark realities. Mere punishment of the offender cannot give much solace to the family of the victim-civil action for damages is a long drawn and a cumbersome Judicial process. Monetary compensation for redressal by the Court finding the infringement of the indefeasible right to life of the citizen is. therefore, useful and at the perhaps the only effective remedy to apply balm to the wounds of the family members of the deceased victim, who may have been the breadwinner of the family.
10. This Court (Division Bench) as early as 1988 in Naosam Ningol Chandam Ongbi Nengshitombi Devi v. Rishang Keising Chief Minister of Manipur and Ors. (1988) 1 GLR 109 the respondents are liable to pay compensation for their failure to do their duty to protect the petitioner's husband who was said to have been taken away by the security forces and shot dead. Coming back to the facts of the present case, in the course of the inquiry by the District Judge, Manipur East, Dr. L. Fimate was examined as RW-4 and he stated that he conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the petitioner's son and dead body was identified by one O. Mangoljao Singh, S. I. of Lamphel Police Station. Dr. L. Fimate, RW-4 stated that he found many external injuries on the dead body of the petitioner's son, i.e. bruises and abrasions at the various parts of the body and he also found that brain oedematus, contusion over upper part of strenum, trachea and bronchi congested, frothy fluid filling bronchi, pleural cavity containing 200 cc of straw colour fluid, the right lung showing petichial haemorrhage with oedema, the heart filling with clotted blood with mild enlargement. According to his opinion death was due to multiple blunt force injuries on the body and injuries are antemortem in nature and the age of injuries was about 4/5 days.
11. Shri Sapam Bobby Singh who was admittedly arrested along with the petitioner's son by the personnel of the 16th Sikh Regiment on 27-1-1998 and taken to the custody of the 16th Sikh Regiment was examined as PW-3 by the District Judge, Manipur East arid he stated that he and the petitioner's son were taken to a Camp and petitioner's son was assaulted by some army personnel and he also heard his friend's crying due to the assault by the army personnel. He stated that he saw his friend, i.e. petitioner's son, hung upside down with a rope bound to his feet and also his friend was assaulted by some army personnel for a period of about one hour in the next morning i.e. on 28-1-1998. After 2/3 hours, he (Sapam Bobby Singh) saw his friend, i.e. petitioner's son, taken away in a vehicle by the personnel of the 16th Sikh Regiment. On the same day, he and his friend, i.e. petitioner's son, were handed over to the police station of Singjamei Police Station. PW-3, Shri Sapam Bobby Singh further stated that petitioner's son was severely assaulted by the army personnel and his friend, i.e. petitioner's son, was never assaulted by the Police. The Inspector Ningthoujam Manimohon Singh, O. C. of the Singjamei P. S. was examined by the District Judge, Manipur East as RW-1 and he stated that after registration of the said FIR he endorsed the Case to ASI, N. Iboyaima Singh (RW-7) for investigation. Thereafter, he left the Police Station at 6.00 PM for making pre-election drive arid returned to the Station at 8.00 PM and he also further stated that the charge of the police station was handed over to S. I. A. Khelendro Singh (RW-6) for the night as he left for his house. Both the RW-6 (S. I. A. Khelendro Singh) and RW-7 (ASI N. Iboyaima Singh) stated that as the petitioner's son was becoming unwell In the night, he was taken to the hospital in the night itself. They also stated that they were informed by the petitioner's son about giving of electric shock at his private part and beating with a stick on his buttock by army personnel. On removal of the cloth of the petitioner's son they saw some bruise marks at or near his buttock.
12. According to the statement of the 3 witnesses mentioned above produced by the respondents 5 and 6, none of the said witnesses was one who was with the petitioner's son through the period he was in the army custody and as per their statement of the petitioner's son and S. Bobby Singh were brought to the army camp at Lamphel at about 10.30 P. M. of 27-1-1998. None of the witnesses produced by the respondents 5 and 6 mentioned as to how the petitioner's son was treated while he was in the custody of the army personnel, i.e. the army personnel of the 16th Sikh Regiment.
13. The learned District Judge after considering the statements, witnesses and other materials before him, he submitted the report dated 30-4-2004 and para Nos. 27 and 28 of the report read as follows:
27. On consideration of the statements of the witnesses and other materials before the Court, I am of the opinion that the testimony of the said Saparn Bobby Singh (PW-3) that the said Jugindro Singh was tortured and beaten by the army personnel is consistence with facts and circumstances of the case established by the testimonies of RW-1 to RW-9 and also PW-1 and PW-2. The said facts and circumstances are --
(a) that on the day of handing over of the said Jugindro Singh and Bobby Singh to police after the army personnel had left, the former complained to the police Officer of having pains on his body;
(b) that the concerned police officer was informed by the said Jugindro Singh that he had been tortured and beaten by the army personnel;
(c) in the night itself the said Jugindro Singh was taken to the Casualty and Accident Clearance Center, Imphal where the concerned doctor found the said Jugindro Singh having injuries;
(d) that the said Jugindro Singh informed the doctor about beating him by army personnel;
(e) that on 29-1-1998 when the said Jugindro Singh was produced before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal, he complained of pains all over his body;
(f) that the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal, remanded the said Jugindro Singh to police custody which would not probably have been done if the said Jugindro Singh complained of having been beaten by police;
(g) that in the opinion of the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination, the death was due to multiple blunt force injuries which could have been caused about 4/5 days from the date of examination on 2-2-1998 and that concerned police personnel took necessary steps for giving medical treatment, while the said Jugindro Singh was in their custody.
It is hard to believe that the army personnel have been falsely implicated in connection with the said injuries leading to the death of the said Jugindro Singh. On careful consideration of all the materials before the Court including the shortcomings in the testimonies of the witnesses of the respondents No. 5 and 6, non compliance with the existing law and rule relating to arrest and exercise of powers under Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 by army personnel and the absence of any medical examination at the time of handing over to police, in my opinion, the mere allegations in the report of the said Lakhwinder Singh, of which he was not the author in the true sense, about medical, physical and mental fitness of the two arrested persons is not sufficient to conclude that the said Jugindro Singh was in fact medically, physically and mentally fit at the relevant time. No doubt, there were lapses on the part of the concerned O/ C, Singjamei P. S. in not ascertaining if the said two arrested persons were actually or in fact medically, physically and mentally fit at the relevant time of handing over.
28. In the result, the following facts are ascertained that on 27-1-1998 at about 10 p.m., the said Jugindro Singh and Sapam Bobby @ Binoy Singh were arrested by a party of 16th Sikh Regiment led by R. S. Bhatt from a road at Kongba Nandeibam Leikai, Imphal. The said party of 16th Sikh Regiment went to the said place after getting information from an army source about loitering of some members of UNLF at the said place. The said two persons Jugindro Singh and Bobby Singh who were coming along the road riding a cycle each, on being identified by the source as members of UNLF, were apprehended by the said party. Both the said persons were taken to army camp and they were handed over to police on 28-1-1998 at about 5.30 p.m. The said Jugindro Singh was subjected to torture and beating by the army personnel while he was in their custody, as a result of the injuries received in the said torture and beating, the said Khumanthem Jugindro Singh died on 1-2-1998 at J.N. Hospital, Porompat. The said Jugindro Singh was admitted to the hospital on 31-1-1998 when his condition became serious while he was in police custody. There is no sufficient evidence to show that the said Jugindro Singh was tortured or beaten by police personnel while he was in police custody.
14. The respondent No. 6 was furnished with the copy of the said report dated 30-4-2004 submitted by the learned District Judge for his comment and objection. But the respondent No. 6 did not file any objection in the form of affidavit or any sort of objection to the said report dated 30-4-2004 submitted by the learned District Judge.
15. From the perusal of the said report dated 30-4-2004 submitted by the learned District Judge, Manipur East, this Court is of the considered view that the learned District Judge, Manipur East had given sufficient reasons for deciding the 2 (two) issues framed by him and made the finding that the petitioner's son was subjected to torture and beating by the army personnel while he was in their custody and as result of the injuries received in the said torture and beating, petitioner's son died on 1-2-1998 at J. N. Hospital, Porompat and also that there is no sufficient evidence to show that petitioner's son was tortured or beaten by the police personnel while he was In police custody.
16. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered view that Union of India, respondent No. 5, Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and respondent No. 6. Commandant, 16th Sikh Regiment, should be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner for the death of her son due to torture by the personnel of the 16th Sikh Regiment while he was in their custody.
17. This Court in Tarulata Devi v. State of Assam 2001 (2) Gauh LT 419 (supra) had awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to the mother of the victim of custodial death. In that case, the victim was not earning even if he was a graduate. This Court (Imphal Bench) in Kangujam Ongbi Devi v. State of Manipur 1999 Cri LJ 3584 (supra) had awarded a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner for the loss of her son while he was in custody and in that case Shri Ojit Singh who lost his life was only a minor aged about 15 years, student of Class X. In the present case, the petitioner's son, Kh. Jugindro Singh @ Jayendra Singh aged about 18 years and also he was working as a goldsmith and he was also maintaining his family. Taking into the earlier decisions of this Court and also the present high cost of living as well as capability of earning by a skilled artisan, i.e. goldsmith, in the State of Manipur, this Court is of the considered view that a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- as amount of compensation should be paid by the Union of India, respondents 5 and 6, to the petitioner within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. It is made clear that the said amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-as a compensation is awarded in exercise of the public law jurisdiction to meet the ends to Justice in addition to other remedies available to the petitioner in the ordinary course of law by way of damages in a civil suit. The Writ Petition stands allowed in terms Indicated above with Rs. 2.000/- as the costs of fees for the learned counsel of the petitioner in the present writ petition.