B. N. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) SHEO Kumar Gupta, Kashi Ram, Rakesh son of Ranjit Singh, Rakesh son of Viladhar Sharma, Anand Gin and Jamadar Singh have filed criminal appeal No. 183 of 1988 and Pratap Singh, Ram Gin, Sant Singh and Subhash have filed criminal appeal No. 168 of 1988 against the judgment of V Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr dated 23-1-1988 passed in S. T. No. 358 of 1982. Sheo Kumar Gupta, Kashi Ram, Rakesh son of Ranjit Singh, Rakesh son of Viladhar Sharma, Anand Gin and Jamadar Singh have been convicted under Section 302/149, 201/120-B, 323/149, 354/149 and 148 I. P. C. and have been sentenced to death, seven years R. I. and a fine of Rs 1000/-, and in default of payments of fine to under go R. I. for one year, three years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for six months, one year R. I. , one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for one month, two years R. I. and a fine of Rs 2000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I, for three months, three years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for six months Pratap Singh, Ram Gin Sant Singh and Subhash have been convicted under Sections 302/149, 201, 218, 120-8, 323/149, 354/149 and 147 I. P. C. and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for one year seven years R I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for one year, three yearst R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo R I. for six months, one year R. I. , one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for one month, two yearst R. I. and a fine of Rs 2000/- And in default of payment of fine to undergo R I. for three months and two years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for one month, two yearst R. I. and a fine of Rs 2000/- And in default of payment of fine to undergo R I. for three months and two years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. of Six months. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently. ( 2 ) SHEO Kumar Gupta, Jamadar Singh and Ram Gin appellants are Sub-Inspectors. Kashi Ram appellant is Head constable. Rakesh son of Ranjit Singh, Rakesh son of Vilddhar Sharma, Anand Gin, Sant Singh and Subhash appellants are Constables. An these appellants were posted as P. S. Baghpat, District Meerut in June 1980. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution is that father of Smt. Maya Tyagi P. W. 2 is Trilok Singh and the brother of Smt. Maya Tyagi is Kamal Singh P. 7. 15. They are residents of Sakal Patti situated at a distance where the wedding of Rabala, daughter of Kamal Singh, was to be performed on 18. 6. 1980. On that day Smt. Maya Tyagi along with her husband Ishwar Singh Tyagi deceased and two of his friends were proceeding by car from Delhi to Sakal Patti to attend the wedding. The car was being driven by the driver Roshan Lal P. W. 12. There was a puncture in one of the tyres of the car and the driver changed the wheel of the car. Thereafter at about 12 noon on that day they reached Bhagpat Chopla (crossing ). The car was stopped at the crossing and the driver took the punctured tyre for repair and Ishwar Singh Tyagi deceased and his two friends went to the Bazar. Smt. Maya Tyagi remained seated in the car. Shortly thereafter a person in plain dress came there and misbehaved with Smt. Maya Tyagi. She told him that he had no manners while she was scolding him Ishwar Singh Tyagi deceased came there and abused him and also threw him down. That person get up and went away after he had left, the persons, who were nearby, said that that person was Narendra Singh S. I. Ishwar Singh Tyagi deceased and his companions wanted to leave that place out of fear, but the driver was unable to start the car. That person get up and went away after he had left, the persons, who were nearby, said that that person was Narendra Singh S. I. Ishwar Singh Tyagi deceased and his companions wanted to leave that place out of fear, but the driver was unable to start the car. Ishwar Singh Tyagi and his two companions then got down from the car and began to push the car. When the car had moved about 4 or 6 paces, a party of Policemen, who were about 10 or 11 in number and which included the person, who had been thrown down by Ishwar Singh Tyagi, came from behind and fired at Ishwar Singh Tyaii deceased and his two companions and also assaulted them with Dandas while Smt. Maya Tyagi and the driver were sitting in the car. Three or four persons thereafter pulled Smt. Maya Tyagi from the car assaulted her and tore her blouse, petti-coat and made her naked while she was shrieking and shouting. When she tried to cover her body with her bands she was assaulted with Lathis and slippers. In the meantime, one person gave her a towel and a Tahmed, but she was not allowed to take them. She was taken in a naked condition from Baggpat Chopal to P. S. Baghpat. Apart from two the remaining miscreants were the accused present in court. They armed with guns and Lathis. After Smt. Maya Tyagi was taken round the Police Station she was kept in a room, which had iron bars. Three Sub-Inspector and three constables came there and committed rape on her one after the other, as a result of which she began to bleed. Gaur Sub- Inspector then came there and assaulted her with a cane and pulled her breasts and inserted a Danda in her vagina. Gaur Sub-Inspector was not amongst the accused present court. ( 4 ) A report regarding the incident was lodged by Narendra Singh S. I. on the same day (18-6-1980) at 2 P. M. at P. S. Baghpat against Roshan Lal P. W. 12, Smt. Sudesh (Maya Tyagi) Brijbir, Prahlad and three unknown persons under Sections 399/402 and 307 IPC and 25 and 27 Arms Act. ( 5 ) A telegram with respect to the incident (Ext. Ka 71) was sent by Kamal Singh PW 15 on the same day (18. 6. ( 5 ) A telegram with respect to the incident (Ext. Ka 71) was sent by Kamal Singh PW 15 on the same day (18. 6. 1980) to the Chief Secretary, UP Government at II PM, which runs as follows: Chief Secretary Lucknow Grith Sachiv 2240 A 11 55 Rut City 18 Ishwar Singh Vinod and other one shot dead by Narendra Singh S. I. and other Police Men Smt. Maya subjected by valence beyond imagination by SO/bhaghpat Guard! and S. I. Narendra. Her pregnancy adversely affected and still bleeding. False case is being fabricated. Maya is in Police custody detail will be given latter on. Kamal Singh. ( 6 ) AN application (Ext. Kha-1) regarding the incident was purported to have been sent by Smt. Maya Tyagi PW 2 to the District Magistrate, Meerut, on 21-6-1980. ( 7 ) THE investigation of the case was first conducted by the Police of P. S. Baghpat. It was subsequently handed over to S. P. Pandey PW 23 of the C. B. , CID on 24-6-1980. ( 8 ) THE injuries of Smt. Maya Tyagi PW 2 were examined by Dr. Neelima Pant DW 1 on 18-6-1980 at 7. 15 PM at Meerut and multiple injuries were found under her chin and on her back, right elbow, left upper arm, left elbow left hand, right breast, lower abdomen, right knee, right foot blood obtained. The doctor also found: There is skin deep tear in 7 oclock position in vagina at the skin margin. Vaginal tear at 6 oclock position a bout 2 long and 1 deep is present. Fresh bleeding from tear. Tear stitched and bleeding controlled. Vagina admits 2 fingers easily. Information and tenderness is present. Ex soft at about 20 (sic) size. Vaginal smear sent for Rasto Pathological examination for presence of spermatozoa. PA Examination Ut. 20 makes allotment present. Breast secretions present areola dark in colour. ( 9 ) DR. Neelima Pant PW 1 again examined the injuries of Maya Tyagi PW 2 on 19-6-1980 at 9 AM and found the under-mentioned injuries on her person: 1. Complaints of pain all over head No mark of external injury seen on hand. 2. Abrasion with soft scab about 0. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm on left side of face 2 cm outer to lateral conthus It. eye. 3. Red blue contusion 6 cm X 0. Complaints of pain all over head No mark of external injury seen on hand. 2. Abrasion with soft scab about 0. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm on left side of face 2 cm outer to lateral conthus It. eye. 3. Red blue contusion 6 cm X 0. 5 cm under it, mandible. 4. Linear abrasion with soft scab 8 cm X 0. 3 cm on Rt. side of neck 10 cm below the pinna of Rt. ear extending anteriority. 5. Red blue contusion 8 cm X 5 cm on the left upper arm, outer part, lower half, pain and swelling present, injury kept under observation subjected to X-ray. 6. Abrasion with soft scab 0. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm on the back and upper part of left elbow joint. 7. Abrasion with soft scab 0. 5 cm x 0 5 cm on the back and outer part of ant elbow. 8. Red blue contusion 30 cm x 1 cm on the upper and of middle 1/3rd of back extending obliquely from mid off lateral margin of left scapula up to the inferior angle of Rt. scapula. 9. Red blue contusion 30 cm X 1/4 cm below injury No. 8 3/4th cm apart from each other. Burn injury No. 8 and 9 cross on middle of left scapula, contusion on scapula is 2 cm wide and common. 10. Red blue contusion 7 cm X 0. 5 cm X 21/2 cm below injury No. 8 extending from lateral end of Lt. scapula to centre of back. 11. Red blue contusion 3 cm X 2 cm just below injury no. 10. 12. Red blue contusion 15 cm X 11/2 cm on the lower 1/3rd back extending obliquely from Left to right. 13. Red blue contusion 10 cm x 2 cm on the It, side of back 8 cm below the injury no. 8. 14. Multiple linear (crescentic) abrasion with soft scab in an area of about 5 cm X 5 cm on lower medial quadrant of Right breast. Each about 0. 2 cm wide and range from 5 cm-8 cm in length. 15. Abrasion with soft scab 5 cm, X 0. 5 cm, 11 cm below the umbilicus at 5 OTclock Position. 16. Abrasion with soft scab 0. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm outer and lower part of right knee. 17. Abrasion with soft scab 0. 5 cm X 0. 2 cm wide and range from 5 cm-8 cm in length. 15. Abrasion with soft scab 5 cm, X 0. 5 cm, 11 cm below the umbilicus at 5 OTclock Position. 16. Abrasion with soft scab 0. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm outer and lower part of right knee. 17. Abrasion with soft scab 0. 5 cm X 0. 5 cm inner part of right knee. 18. Abrasion with soft scab 3 cm X 0. 5 cm on the top of left knee. 19. Abrasion with soft scab 3 cm X 1 cm on the left knee 5 cm below injury no. 18. 20. Lacerated would with soft scab 0. 5 cm x 1. 5 cm x skin deep on the outer part of left great toe. Trenderness present. 21. Red Blue contusion 5 cm X 2 cm on inner side of left foot at the root of great toe. 22. Red blue contusion on Right thigh 11 cm X 15 cm on anteromedial surface 20 cm above knee joint. 23. Red blue contusion 10 X 10 cm below iliac crest on right hip. 24. Red blue contusion 15 cm X 22 cm on right hip extending up to coceyx. 25. Multiple small red blue contusions on left hip at the level of coceyx extending laterally. T ( 10 ) IN the opinion of Dr. Pant, all the injuries were simple. Injuries Nos. 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,20, 21, 23, 24 and 25 were caused by some blunt hard object. Injuries Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 were caused friction against hard object. Injury no. 14 appeared to have been caused by finger nails. Duration of all the injuries examined on 19-6-1980 was about one day (24 hours ). Vaginal injury noted by her on 18-6-1980 was a rape injury and duration of this injury was about half a day. As per supplementary report dated 21-6-1980, in the opinion of Dr. Pant. the age of Smt. Maya Tyagi PW 2 was between 19 and 20 years. ( 11 ) THE injuries of Roshan Lal PW 12 were examined by Dr. R. K. Tayal PW 11 on 18-6-1980 at 6 pm at Baghpat and the under mentioned injuries were found on his person: 1. Red contusion 7 cm X 3 cm right side head 5 cm above the right ear. 2. ( 11 ) THE injuries of Roshan Lal PW 12 were examined by Dr. R. K. Tayal PW 11 on 18-6-1980 at 6 pm at Baghpat and the under mentioned injuries were found on his person: 1. Red contusion 7 cm X 3 cm right side head 5 cm above the right ear. 2. Linear abrasion 2 cm on the right palm below the right wrist. 3. Red contusion of the left palm in an area of 7 cm, X 10 cm, 6 cm below the left wrists. 4. Red contusion 11 cm X 5 cm on the right leg 8 cm below the right knee joint. 5. Red contusion 9 cm X 2 cm on the right leg 15 cm below the right knee joint. Advised Xray. Injury is kept under observation. 6. Red contusion 19 cm X 2 cm on the, right leg 15 cm below injury no. 5. 7. Red contusion 16 cm x 20 cm on the left leg 6 cm below the left, knee joint. 8. Red contusion 10 cm X 2 cm on the left ankle. 9. Lacerated wound on the left foot on dersal aspect 7 m X 10 cm X skin deep 19 cm away from the left heel. T ( 12 ) IN the opinion of Dr. Tayal, all the injuries except injury no. 5 were simple and could be caused by any hard blunt object. The injuries could be received between 1 PM to 4 PM on 18-6-1980. ( 13 ) THE post-mortem examination of the bodies of Rajendra Dutt Gaur, Ishwar Singh Tyagi and Surendra Singh Tyagi (deceased) conducted by Dr. TR Sharma, PW 4 on 19-6-1980 at 3 PM, 4 PM and 445 PM respectively. ( 14 ) THE under-mentioned ante-mortem external injuries were found on the body of Rajendra Dutt Gaur deceased: 1. One exit of gun shot would in front of chest oval in diameter, 6 cm X 2. 5 cm medially from right nipple. Blackening around the wound present, with fracture of lind part of sternum. 2. One entrance of gun shot wound in the left side of abdomen, oval in shape, 1 cm X 1 cm in diameter, 14 cm below the left nipple. Blackening is present around the wound. 3. 5 cm medially from right nipple. Blackening around the wound present, with fracture of lind part of sternum. 2. One entrance of gun shot wound in the left side of abdomen, oval in shape, 1 cm X 1 cm in diameter, 14 cm below the left nipple. Blackening is present around the wound. 3. One through and through gun shot wound in left side of temporal region, 6 cm X 3 cm X scalp deep extending from left ear. 4. One entrance of gun shot with in right side back 1 cm X 1 cm 7 cm below the inferior angle of scapula. No. BTS (Blackening, tattooing and scorching ). 5. One entrance of gun shot wound in back of chest, 1 cm X 1 cm, 8 cm below the wound No. 4 No. BTS (Blackening, tattooing and Scorching) 6. One entrance of gun shot wound in the lateral aspect of right knee joint 2 cm X 1. 5 cm in diameter. 7. One exit of gun shot wound in right leg, 10 cm X 65 cm X 4 cm. above the right knee joint with fracture of lower shaft of femur bone. 8. Lacorated wound in left knee joint 1. 5 cm x I cm X muscle deep. T ( 15 ) ON internal examination, the right lung, pericardium and heart were found to be ruptured. ( 16 ) IN the opinion of Dr. Sharma, the injuries found on the body of Rajendra Dutt Gaur deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ( 17 ) THE under-mentioned ante-mortem external injuries were found on the body of Ishwar Singh Tyagi deceased: 1. Entranch of gunshot wound, right forearm 3 cm X 3 cm. 17 cm. below the Rt. shoulder joint. No T. B. S. (ii) One exit of gun shot wound in medial aspect of right arm, 1 cm X 1 cm. 4 cm. below the right axillary fossa. 2. Lacerated wound 17 cm. X 10 cm. on the right forearm, 17 cm. below the right elbow joint, with fracture of both right radius and ulna bones. 3. One exit of gun shot wound in right side of back 3 cm. X 2 cm. at the junction of right hip joint. 4. One entrance of gun shot wound 2 cm. X 2 cm. in left arm, 8 cm. below the left shoulder joint. 5. 3. One exit of gun shot wound in right side of back 3 cm. X 2 cm. at the junction of right hip joint. 4. One entrance of gun shot wound 2 cm. X 2 cm. in left arm, 8 cm. below the left shoulder joint. 5. One exit wound of gun shot in left side of back 4 cm X 2 cm. X 5 cm. above the left hip joint. 6. One exit of gun shot wound in right leg 1 cm. X 1 cm. 8 cm. below the right popleleal fossa. 7. One entrance of gun shot wound 2 cm. X 3 cm. 9 cm. below the right joint. No B. T. S. With fracture of both right tibia and fibula. 8. One entrance of gun shot wound 1 cm. X 1 cm. in left leg, 13 cm. below the left knew joint. N. B. T. S. 9. One entrance of gun shot wound 2 cm. X 5 cm. in the left leg 2 cm. X 5 cm. gem below the left knee joint. 10. Entrance of gun shot wound 5 cm. X 5 cm. 3 cm. lateral to 1st lumber vertebra. 11. One entrance of gun shot wound 0. 5 cm. X 0. 5 cm. lateral to injury no. 9 . ( 18 ) ON internal examination, first and second lumber vertebra were found to be fractured. ( 19 ) IN the opinion of Dr. Sharma, the injuries found on the body of Ishwar Singh Tyagi deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ( 20 ) THE Under-mentioned ante-mortem external injuries were found on the body of Surendra Singh deceased 1. One entrance of gun shot wound in right side chets 0. 5 cm X 0. 5 cm at the level of Rt. nipple. No T. B. S. 2. One entrance of gun shot wound 2 cm X 2 cm, 3 cm lateral to injury no. 1. 3. Exit of gun shot wound in right side of neck 7 cm X 8 cm, 4 cm above the right shoulder joint. 4. Lacerated wound 8 cm X 10 cm at the base right thumb wish fracture of metracorpal bone. 5. One exit of gun shot wound in left side of chest 2 cm X 2 cm below the left nipple. 6. One exit of gun shot wound 0. 5 cm 0. 4. Lacerated wound 8 cm X 10 cm at the base right thumb wish fracture of metracorpal bone. 5. One exit of gun shot wound in left side of chest 2 cm X 2 cm below the left nipple. 6. One exit of gun shot wound 0. 5 cm 0. 5 cm 11 cm below injury no. 5. 7. Multiple abrasion in back 17 cm X 5 cm extending from the base of the neck. 8. Lacerated wound on the dorsal aspect of right foot 4 cm X 4 cm muscle deep with fracture of 1 to 3rd matacorpal bone, 3 cm below right ankle joint. 9. Lacerated wound 18 cm X 11 cm X muscle deep in left leg, 5 cm below the left knee joint with fracture of both left tibia and fibula. T ( 21 ) ON internal examination, the pleura, right lung and the heart were found to be punctured. ( 22 ) IN the opinion of Dr. Sharma, the injuries found on the body of Surendra Singh deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ( 23 ) THE prosecution examined four eye witnesses, namely, Smt. Maya Tyagi P. W. 2. Malkhan Singh P. W. 3, Roshan Lal P. W. 12 and Ishwar Singh P. W. 17. ( 24 ) ALL the appellants pleaded not guilty. Sant Singh and Subhash appellants denied their participation in the incident. Counter version of the incident was given by Rum Gin S. I. appellant, which was adopted by Sheo Kumar Gupta, Kashi Ram, Rakesh son of Ranjit Singh, Rakesh son of Viladhar Shrama, Anand Gin, Jamadar Singh and Pratap Singh, appellants. According to the counter version Ishwar Tyagi was a dacoit and his gang was notorious - and operated in the region of Baghpat. They always had a woman in their car to deceive the Police. On the day of occurrence, Narendra Singh S. I. , who was incharge of P. S Baghpat, received information from an informer that the armed gang of Ishwar Tyagi was coming in a car from Delhi for the commission of high way robbery and dacoity and a woman was also with them. When the said gang reached Baghpat it was stopped by Narendra Singh S. I. and he sent information to P. S. Baghpat for sending a Police force. When the said gang reached Baghpat it was stopped by Narendra Singh S. I. and he sent information to P. S. Baghpat for sending a Police force. Members of the P. A. C. were also present at P. S. Baghpat at that time. After receiving the aforesaid information members of the P. A. C. and members of the Police force of P. S. Baghpat left the Police Station for the place of occurrence. Narendra Singh S. I. told Ram Gin, S. K. Gupta, Jamadar Singh and Kashi Ram appellants to chase the dacoits who had run away from the place of occurrence and they run after them. When they returned the entire incident was over and Narendra Singh S. I, had arrested Smt. Maya Tyagi and Roshan Lal and had taken them to PS. Baghpat. Whatsover was done by Police force was done under the orders of Narendra Singh S. I. There was no time to check and verify. The three deceased, who were killed at the spot, were history-sheets and a list of criminal cases in which they were involved was filed by Ram Gin appellant in court after making his statement. ( 25 ) MAM Chand Head (D. W. 1) was examined in defence. ( 26 ) THE trial court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellants and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned earlier. Narendra Singh SI co-accused was murdered during the pendency of the trial. ( 27 ) SMT. Maya Tyagi PW 2 narrated the prosecution case as mentioned earlier. It was also stated by her that the accused present in court were the miscreants. There were two other miscreants also. Her statement that she, the three deceased and Roshan Lal PW 12 were proceeding from Delhi to Sakal Patti to attend the wedding of her niece Raja Bab is supported by the evidence of her brother Kamal Singh PW 15. It is note worthy that Sakal Patti is only at a distance of about 15 Kms. from Baghpat and Baghpat falls on the way from Delhi to Sakal Patti. It is also note worthy that the attache (Ext. 9), which was found in the car, in which she and the deceased were travelling, contained Saries pieces of Poplin and Rubia, Frocs, Chadar, Kachcha (Childs) etc. from Baghpat and Baghpat falls on the way from Delhi to Sakal Patti. It is also note worthy that the attache (Ext. 9), which was found in the car, in which she and the deceased were travelling, contained Saries pieces of Poplin and Rubia, Frocs, Chadar, Kachcha (Childs) etc. , regarding which recovery memo Ext. Ka 79 was prepared, which also supported her statement that she was going to attend a wedding. Her statement that there was a puncture in one of the tyres of the car and at the Baghpat crossing when the driver had gone to get it repaired and her husband Ishwar Singh Tyagi deceased and the two other deceased had gone to the Bazar at Baghpat, one known person in plain dress came and tried to misbehave with her and she scolded him and in the meantime her husband Ishwar Singh Tyagi deceased came there and abused him and threw him down appears to be natural and convincing. Her statement that when she and the three deceased were informed by the persons - in Baghpat Bazar that the person who had been thrown down by Iswar Singh Tyagi deceased was Narendra Singh Sub-Inspector, they tried to leave that place, but the car did not start and while the three deceased were trying to push the car, they were fired at by a Police party is supported by the medical evidence, which indicates that around gunshot injuries Nos. 1 and 2 found on the body of Rajendra Datt Gaur deceased, there was blackening which shows that he was fired at from close range. It is also note worthy that the photographs Exts. 6,7 and 8 taken by Sushil Kumar Photographer PW 19 show that the bodies of two of the deceased were lying near the car in which they were traveling. Her statement that she was pulled down from the car and assaulted by some of the appellants is supported by the injuries found on her person at the time of her medical examination by Dr. Neelima Pant PW 1. It appears that she was made naked and assaulted by some of the appellants as she was the root cause of the incident. Neelima Pant PW 1. It appears that she was made naked and assaulted by some of the appellants as she was the root cause of the incident. It also appears that the three deceased were fired at by the Police party at the time of the incident in order to take revenge of the humiliation caused to Narendra Singh SI at a short distance from PS Baghpat. It is true that it was stated by Smt. Maya Tyagi that in the application made by her three days after the incident, it was got written by her that they had reached the Baghpat crossing in the afternoon on the day of occurrence and as soon as they proceeded to purchase some articles from shops, they saw a fight going on between the Police of PS Baghpat and some persons and firing took place thereafter, but this is of no importance as it appears to have been made by her under some confusion. The aforesaid statement is obviously incorrect for, if a fight had taken place between some other persons and the Police party, which resulted in firing, there was no occasion for the three deceased to have been fired at by the Police party. It is also true that it was stated by her that she had got written in the aforesaid application that she got to know after the incident that the Police had killed her husband and thereafter had set fire to his body. This also appears to have been stated by her under some confusion as admittedly the medical evidence does not show that the body of Ishwar Singh Tyagi deceased was burnt after his death. It is noteworthy that the original application, which is alleged to have been made by Smt. Maya Tyagi three days after the incident, has not been filed in court. Only its copy Ext. Kha-l has been file-J. In these circumstances, Smt. Maya Tyagi has not been confronted with the application purported to have been made by her to the District Magistrate three days after the incident. It is true that the name of Smt. Maya Tyagi has been mentioned as Sudesh in Ext. Kha-1, but no importance can be attached to this as her name was mentioned as Sudesh in the documents prepared by the Police soon after the incident. It is true that the name of Smt. Maya Tyagi has been mentioned as Sudesh in Ext. Kha-1, but no importance can be attached to this as her name was mentioned as Sudesh in the documents prepared by the Police soon after the incident. Considering the fact that Smt. Maya Tyagi is an illiterate woman, which is evident from the fact that she has thumb marked her statement in court, it is highly doubtful whether she was the author of the application purported to have been sent on her behalf to the District Magistrate three days after the incident (coy of which is Ext. Kha-1 ). It is true that in the injury reports prepared by Dr. Neelima Pant PW 1, her name has been mentioned as Sudesh wife of Rajesh resident of Faridabad, but this is also of no importance as it was stated by her that she had not told her name to Dr. Pant but the Constables who taken her had done so. It is noteworthy that her name has been mentioned as Sudesh in the first information report lodged by Narendra Singh SI regarding the incident. The statement of Dr. Pant that Smt. Maya Tyagi had told her that her name was Sudesh appears to have been made by her under some confusion. It was stated by Smt. Maya Tyagi that she had not seen the miscreants after the incident till her statement was recorded in the trial court. It is true that it appears from General Diary Entry No. 23 (Ext. , Ka. 163) that Jamadar Singh and Sant Singh appellants had taken her from the Police Station to the hospital for medical examination, but from this it cannot be inferred that these two appellants had not participated in the incident as it is quite possible that she may not have noticed them while she was being taken from the police Station to the hospital after the incident as she must have not in great agony in view of the large number of injuries received by her. Certain discrepancies have also been pointed out in the statement made by Smt. Maya Tyagi in the trial court and the statement made by her before the Commission, but no importance can be attached to them as the statement made by her before the Commission is irrelevant in the trial. Certain discrepancies have also been pointed out in the statement made by Smt. Maya Tyagi in the trial court and the statement made by her before the Commission, but no importance can be attached to them as the statement made by her before the Commission is irrelevant in the trial. We are fortified in our opinion by the decision of the Supreme Court in Kahar Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration1) Nothing has been brought out in the cross- examination of Smt. Maya Tyagi to shake her credit. In our opinion, her evidence is reliable. ( 28 ) MALKHAN Singh PW 3 corroborated the evidence of Smt. Maya Tyagi PW 2 regarding the incident. It was stated by him that on the day of occurrence he had come to Baghpat from his village Sakal Patti to take the deed of agreement which was with Munshi Kishan Sahai. He had reached Baghpat at about 11 AM. At about noon after he had taken the aforesaid document and had reached Baghpat crossing, a car was parked there and a girl and a man were sitting in the car. In the meantime about 10 Policemen came there from the side of the Police Station armed with guns and Lathis. Three other persons, who were present near the car, were pushing the car. The Police party fired at them, as a result of which two of them died near the car while the third fell at some distance. The girl who was sitting in the car was then dragged from the car and she was robbed of her ornaments and was made naked and was dragged to the Police Station. She tried to cover her private parts with her hands but she was pushed with Dandas. He also proceeded towards the 1. 1988 SCC 609 . Police Station. He recognised Smt. Maya Tyagi PW 2 as was the daughter of Trilok Singh of his village. While she was being taken to the Police Station, one person threw a Lungi towards her, but the Policemen took it. The marriage of the daughter of Kamal Singh (PW 15) son of Trilok Singh Was to be performed on that day in village Sakal Patti. He was not allowed to enter the Police Station. While she was being taken to the Police Station, one person threw a Lungi towards her, but the Policemen took it. The marriage of the daughter of Kamal Singh (PW 15) son of Trilok Singh Was to be performed on that day in village Sakal Patti. He was not allowed to enter the Police Station. He pointed to the appellants, who were present in court, and said that they bad killed the deceased and had made Smt. Maya Tyagi naked and taken her to the Police Station. One of the miscreants, whose name be got to know subsequently as Narendra, was not present in court. After the incident he told Jagbir Singh Advocate PW 16 to go to Sakal Patti and inform Trilok Chand regarding the incident. Jagbir Singh then arranged for a car and he went on it to Sakal Patti and informed Trilok Singh and his family members regarding the incident. None of the three persons who were killed by the Police were armed. Smt. Maya Tyagi also did not have any cartridge with her and none of the three deceased had fired at the Police party at the time of the incident. He had heard the shrieks of Smt. Maya Tyagi while she was inside the Police Station, but he could not see her. After he had informed Kamal Singh PW 15 regarding the incident Kamal Singh and his family members came to Baghpat on a tractor. The explanation furnished by him for his presence at the time of incident appears to be convincing. His evidence is supported by the evidence of Kamal Singh PW 15, who deposed that he was informed regarding the incident on the day of occurrence by him and also by Jagbir Singh PW 16. It is true that be is a resident of village Sakal Patti and Trilok Singh and his family members were known to him before the occurrence, but this is not sufficient to reject his testimony. His evidence is also supported by the medical evidence. Nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to shake his credit. In our opinion, his evidence is also reliable. ( 29 ) ROSHAN Lal PW 12 deposed that he is the owner of Taxi UPG 6005. His evidence is also supported by the medical evidence. Nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to shake his credit. In our opinion, his evidence is also reliable. ( 29 ) ROSHAN Lal PW 12 deposed that he is the owner of Taxi UPG 6005. On 18-6-1980 at about 11 AM while he was at the Moti Nagar Taxi Stand at Delhi, two persons came there and engaged his taxi for taking them to a village at a short distance from, Baghpat in connection with a wedding. He took them from the taxi stand to Subhash Nagar where three other persons and one woman were picked up. He was thereafter declared hostile and was cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. It was stated by him in his cross examination on behalf of the prosecution that Smt Maya Tyagi was picked up from Tilak Nagar. She had an attached with her. He was sent to jail on 19-6-1980, but he did not know in what connection. He was arrested on 18-6-1980 at a bout 1. 30 PM by the Baghpat Police while he was getting a tyre repaired at the Baghpat crossing. He had brought five persons and Smt. Maya Tyagi from Delhi to Baghpat in his taxi. He denied that he had stated before the investigating officer that three persons and a woman had set in his taxi at Tilak Nagar and he could offer no explanation how this was mentioned in his statement. The attached of Smt. Maya Tyagi was kept in the dicky of the car. He bad stopped the car at the Baghpat crossing to get the tyre, which was punctured, repaired. The persons who were sitting in the car had got down at Baghpat to purchase articles, but Smt. Maya Tyagi remained sitting in the car while he was getting the punctured of the tyre repaired. One person in plain clothes came near the car and misbehaved with Smt. Maya Tyagi. In the meantime, the other persons, who had come in the taxi, came there and there was a fight between them and the person who had misbehaved with Smt. Maya Tyagi. Some persons then informed that the person with whom the fight had taken place was the Sub-Inspector of PS Baghpat. In the meantime, the other persons, who had come in the taxi, came there and there was a fight between them and the person who had misbehaved with Smt. Maya Tyagi. Some persons then informed that the person with whom the fight had taken place was the Sub-Inspector of PS Baghpat. All the persons who had come from Delhi then sat in the taxi and he tried to start it but it did not start. Then they get down from the taxi and three of them began to push it. The Police party then came there, but none of them fired. He then said that none of the accused present in court were in the Police party which had come to the place of occurrence at the time of the incident. It was also stated by him that the Police men, who had taken him to the Police Station after the incident, were also not amongst the accused. They had also made Smt. Maya Tyagi naked and taken her to the Police Station. He also received injuries at the time of the incident. His statement that none of the appellants were members of the Police party, which had come to the place of occurrence and had participated in the incident and had taken him to the police station and that there were five persons along with Smt Maya Tyagi, who had come from Delhi with him, cannot be relied upon as he appears to have been won over. His evidence regarding the origin of the incident, however, appears to be reliable as it is supported by the version of the incident given by Smt. Maya Tyagi PW 2 and Malkhan Singh PW3. ( 30 ) ISHWAR Singh PW 17 deposed that he is a resident of village Sakal Patti. On 18-6-1980 he had come to Baghpat from his village at about 10 A. M. as he had to go to Delhi. As soon as he reached the Bus stand at Baghpat one white ambassador car came there from Delhi and was parked near the shop of tyre repair. Two or three persons got down from the car. He recognised Ishwar Tyagi amongst them as he was- the son-in-law of Trilok Singh of his village and he had also attended the marriage of the son of Trilok Singh which he had also attended. Two or three persons got down from the car. He recognised Ishwar Tyagi amongst them as he was- the son-in-law of Trilok Singh of his village and he had also attended the marriage of the son of Trilok Singh which he had also attended. While lshwar Tyagi was talking at Baghpat crossing, Shriek of a woman was heard coming from the car. Ishwar Tyagi then went towards the car where two persons were standing in plain clothes. There was a fight between them and Ishwar Tyagi threw one of them on the ground. That person told his companion that he should go to the Police Station and bring Police force with him. Members of the public, who had gathered, said that the Sub-Inspector had been beaten and now let us see what happens. He told Ishwar Tyagi that he had not acted wisely in incurring enmity with the Police. The driver of the car then tried to start the car but it did not start. The car was then pushed. In the meantime 8 or 9 Police men came there and the person, who had been assaulted, joined them. The Police men were armed with guns, rifles and Dandas and they began to fire from their weapons. Two of the persons, who were pushing the car, received gun shot injuries and died. One of them tried to run, but he was also fired at and he also died. The Police party then took a search of the bodies of the three deceased and recovered cash from them. The persons who were killed did not have any fire arms or cartridges with them and had not fired at the Police party. Members of the public had also not thrown any brick bats. The Policemen then dragged down the woman who was sitting in the car and first snatched her ornaments and then torn her clothes and made her naked and took her forcibly to the Police Station. In the meantime one person came on a motor cycle. He was informed by members of the public that he was Station Officer Gaur of PS Baghpat. He inserted a Danda in the vagina of the woman and said that she should be taken to the Police Station. The woman was assaulted and taken to the Police Station. The Sub Inspector of Police, who was first beaten, was not amongst the accused. He inserted a Danda in the vagina of the woman and said that she should be taken to the Police Station. The woman was assaulted and taken to the Police Station. The Sub Inspector of Police, who was first beaten, was not amongst the accused. He was informed that he had been subsequently killed. He, however, was unable to identify any of the appellants in court as the incident had taken place seven years earlier. It was stated by him that SO Gaur was also not amongst the accused. It appears that he has deliberately not identified the appellants in the trial court as it was admitted by him that the relations of the appellants had come to his village and had extended threats. It is true that his evidence regarding the participation of the appellants in the incident is of no value, but his evidence regarding the version of the incident appears to be reliable as it is supported by the evidence of Smt. Maya Tyagi PW 2, Malkhan Singh PW 3 and Roshan Lal PW 2. ( 31 ) JAGBIR Singh PW 16 deposed that on 18-6-1980 while he was proceeding from Syndicate Bank, Pilana to Baghpat via Tatora, he was informed that Policemen had killed three persons at Baghpat, who were attempting to commit robbery in the Syndicate Bank. He reached Baghpat at about 1. 30 PM and went to the Syndicate Bank, but he was informed by the Manager of the Bank that neither any dacoity was committed in the bank nor any attempt was made to commit dacoity in the bank. Three persons had however, been killed by the Police in front of the bank. He found two persons lying dead to the south of the road and one person lying dead to the south-east of the road. No fire arms or cartridges were lying near the bodies of the three deceased. He then went to the Tahsil. He was told by one person to go to the Police Station as there was one girl along with the dacoits who said that she belonged to his village Sakal Patti and was going to Sakal Patti to attend the wedding of her niece. The marriage of the daughter of Kamal Singh PW 15 was to take place on that day. He then went to PS Baghpat and saw that girl who was naked. The marriage of the daughter of Kamal Singh PW 15 was to take place on that day. He then went to PS Baghpat and saw that girl who was naked. He did not know her name at that time. When he came to the gate of the Police Station he was told by Malkhan Singh PW 3 of his village that the girl was Maya sister of Kamal Singh Tyagi of his village and that he should try to get her released. He then sent Malkhan Singh by car to Sakal Patti to inform Kamal Singh. Kamal Singh and many other persons of village Sakal Patti came to Baghpat on the same day at about 5. 30 PM. Maya was made to wear some clothes and was being taken to Meerut by the Police. Police who had gathered there then began to shout that some persons should go with Maya otherwise she would be killed. He then accompanied Maya to Meerut with the permission of the Police. Maya was taken in the Women Section of Dufferin Hospital at Meerut. He then returned from there at about 8 PM and on 20-6-1980 he got Maya released on bail. It was stated by him that he did not know Maya personally before the occurrence. His statement before the Commission that he knew Maya before the occurrence is irrelevant and inadmissible in the trial. His statement before the Commission that he did not see the bodies of the three deceased at Baghpat is also irrelevant and no importance can be attached to it. His evidence that he sent Malkhan Singh by car to Sakal Patti to inform the relations of Maya Tyagi regarding the incident is supported by the evidence of Malkhan Singh PW 3. Nothing has been brought out in his cross examination to shake his credit. In our opinion, his evidence is also reliable. ALLAHABAD ( 32 ) KAMAL Singh PW 15 deposed that Maya Tyagi is his sister. She was married to Ishwar Singh Tyagi of village Talhata. On 18-6-1980 they were coming from Delhi where they resided. His daughter Raj Bala was to be married to Ashok on that day (18-6-1980 ). At about 2. ALLAHABAD ( 32 ) KAMAL Singh PW 15 deposed that Maya Tyagi is his sister. She was married to Ishwar Singh Tyagi of village Talhata. On 18-6-1980 they were coming from Delhi where they resided. His daughter Raj Bala was to be married to Ashok on that day (18-6-1980 ). At about 2. 30 PM on that day (18-6-1980) he received information from Malkhan Singh PW 3 that Ishwar Singh Tyagi and his two companions were lying dead at Baghpat crossing and that Maya had been naked and was beaten and taken to PS Baghpat. He along with some other persons of Sakal Patti then went on a tractor to Baghpat and found three dead bodies lying at Baghpat crossing, which were covered with cloth. No weapon was lying near the bodies. The Policemen, who were present there, did not -allow him to see the bodies. He was informed by the person who had gathered there that the bodies were of, Ishwar and Vinod. He then went to the police station and saw Maya there. He was informed by persons who had gathered at the Baghpat crossing that the Police had made her naked and beaten her and taken her to the Police Station. When he saw her she was wearing clothes. She was taken in his presence by two Constables in a motor vehicle to Meerut. He then returned to his village Sakal Patti and performed the marriage of his daughter. He thereafter went to Meerut and sent telegram (Ext. Ka 71) to the Home Secretary. It is noteworthy that his statement that Maya Tyagi was his sister and was married to Ishwar Singh Tyagi deceased and that the marriage of his daughter Raj Bala was to be performed on the day of occurrence and he was informed regarding the incident by Malkhan Singh PW 2 on that day and that he did not find any weapons lying near the bodies of the deceased has not even been challenged in cross- examination. Nothing has been brought out in his cross examination to shake his credit. In our opinion, his evidence is reliable and furnishes strong corroboration to the testimony of Smt. Maya Tyagi PW 2 that she and the three deceased were coming to Sakal Patti from Delhi to attend the wedding of Raj Bala when the incident took place at Baghpat. Nothing has been brought out in his cross examination to shake his credit. In our opinion, his evidence is reliable and furnishes strong corroboration to the testimony of Smt. Maya Tyagi PW 2 that she and the three deceased were coming to Sakal Patti from Delhi to attend the wedding of Raj Bala when the incident took place at Baghpat. ( 33 ) SUSHIL Kumar PW 19 deposed that he was working as a photographer since about a year before the occurrence. On the day of occurrence he was called by the Police of PS Baghpat and he went to the place of occurrence (Baghpat crossing) in the afternoon and remained there till the evening and took photographs. He found three or four dead bodies lying there and he took their photographs. Narendra Singh SI took those photographs and some negatives which were clear from him. Some negatives, however, remained with him. Thereafter the CID Inspector met him and he gave those negatives to him. The CID Inspector had paid him Rs. 8/- and had taken the negatives and the photographs, which he had taken on 18-6-1980, from him on 15-1-1981. The- receipt for the payment of Rs. 8/- to him is Ext. Ka-92. The Photographs, which he had taken at the place of occurrence, are material exhibits 147 to 151. The positive prints of negatives material exhibits 147 and 248 are Exts. 6 and 7, which were prepared by him. While he was taking the photographs he was told by the police that the surroundings of the place where the dead bodies were lying should also come in the photographs. The photographs did not show that any weapons were present near the dead bodies. He denied the suggestion that the photographs, in which fire-arms were seen lying near the bodies of the deceased were not given by him to the cm. Nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to shake his credit. In our opinion, his evidence is reliable. ( 34 ) PS Negi Dy SP PW 13 deposed that on 18-6-1980 at 4 PM he reached PS Baghpat. He found one women, who gave out her name as Sudesh, and one man, who gave out his name as Roshan, there. Both were injured. Later on he came to know that the name of the woman was Maya. ( 34 ) PS Negi Dy SP PW 13 deposed that on 18-6-1980 at 4 PM he reached PS Baghpat. He found one women, who gave out her name as Sudesh, and one man, who gave out his name as Roshan, there. Both were injured. Later on he came to know that the name of the woman was Maya. Roshan had returned from the hospital and his injuries had been examined. He sent Maya to the hospital along with Jagbir Singh Advocate. Maya did not talk to him, but Roshan did. It was wrong to say that he had sent Jagbir Singh along with Maya Tyagi as she had told him that there was danger to her life at the hands of the Police. He talked to the appellants, who were his subordinates and were known to him. They told him that there was an encounter between them and miscreants, in which some miscreants were killed. A report under Section 399/402 IPC had been registered at the Police Station by Narendra Singh SI co-accused. The chik report relating to the said case appeared to have been written by Kashi Ram appellant on 18. 6. 1980. He recognized the band writing and signature of Kasbi Ram. The said chik report was marked Ext. Ka 69. He was not aware that a final report bad been filed against Maya Tyagi and Roshan in the aforesaid case. In his cross- examination, it was stated by him that he had received information regarding the incident at 2. 30 PM at Police Office, Meerut, that three miscreants had been killed in an encounter with the Police and one woman and one man had been arrested. He went to Baghpat and on reaching the place of occurrence he found three persons lying dead and pistols and cartridges were lying near the dead bodies. We are, however, not prepared to accept this as no injuries were found on any Policemen or any member of the public. If the three deceased were armed with fire-arms and cartridges, it is difficult to believe that they would not have fired at the Police party when they were being fired at. It is noteworthy that he was declared hostile and was cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. ( 35 ) THE statement of Dr. If the three deceased were armed with fire-arms and cartridges, it is difficult to believe that they would not have fired at the Police party when they were being fired at. It is noteworthy that he was declared hostile and was cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. ( 35 ) THE statement of Dr. K. K. Singhal PW 5 is not of any importance as it is a mere opinion obtained by the investigating authority for the purposes of investigation. ( 36 ) THE defence of the appellants, as mentioned earlier, has been stated by Ram Gin appellant in his statement under Section 323 Cr PC, which was adopted by all the other appellants except Sant Singh and Subhash. Apart from this, there are a number of documents, which have been proved by Bhagwat Singh Head Constable PW 21 to have been written by Sashi Ram appellant, namely, GD Entries Exs Ka-158, 159, 160 and 162. Kashi Ram appellant has also admitted that these entries are in his handwriting and it has been stated by him that they were written at the instance of Narendra Singh SI. ( 37 ) IT is mentioned in GD. Entry (Ext Ka-158) No. 18 of PS Baghpat recorded at 12. 30 PM on 18-6- 1980 that information had been received from an informer that ambassador car No. UPC 6005 JD which there were six men and a woman bad stopped at Baghpat crossing and the men who were in the car were talking amongst themselves and saying that the woman should be left behind and they should commit robbery thereafter. On receipt of this information SI Narendra Singh SI Sheo Kumar Gupta and Head Constables Kashi Ram proceeded to the place of occurrence. In GD Entry (Ext. Ka-159) No. 19 of PS Bagbpat recorded at 1. 30 PM on 18-6-1980, it is mentioned that Kashi Ram Head Constable had come to the Police Station and had given information that miscreants were found in the car regarding which information had been given earlier and excbange of gun-fire had taken place between the Police and them. There was insufficient Police force and arms at the place of occurrence. 30 PM on 18-6-1980, it is mentioned that Kashi Ram Head Constable had come to the Police Station and had given information that miscreants were found in the car regarding which information had been given earlier and excbange of gun-fire had taken place between the Police and them. There was insufficient Police force and arms at the place of occurrence. On receiving this information Rakesh Kumar Constable No. 808 armed with a rifle and 30 cartridges, Jamadar Singh SI armed with a pistol and cartridges, Kashi Ram Head Constable armed with a rifle and 30 cartridges for himself and one rifle of the SO for Narendra Singh SI, Anand Gin Constable armed with a rifle and 30 cartridges, Rakesh Constable No. 702 armed with DBBL gun and cartridges and Subhash, Sant Singh and Pratap Singh Constables and Ram Gin SI armed with Lathis left for the place of occurrence. In GD Entry (Ex. Ka. 160) No. 20 of PS Baghpat recorded at 2 PM on 18-6-1980 it is mentioned that SI Narendra Singh, Head Constable Kashi Ram, Constable Anand Gin had returned to the Police Station along with Roshan Lal son of Ram Chandra and Smt. Sudesh wife of Rajesh who had been arrested under Section 399/402 and 307 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. The aforesaid two persons had also received injuries at the time of their arrest. On a search being taken nothing was recovered from Rosban Lal. Both the aforesaid persons were lodged in the Police lock-up. A report under Section 399/402/307 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act had been lodged against Roshan Lal, Smt. Sudesh, Brijbir, Prahlad and three others who had been killed and whose names were not known. In G D Entry (Ext. Ka-162) No. 22 of PS. Baghpat recorded at 3. 15 PM. On 18-6-1980 it is mentioned that Jamadar Singh, Rakesh Constable No. 808, Subhash Chandra and Sant Singh constables have returned along with their weapons to the Police Station. In the wire-less message (Ext. Ka. 91) sent at 205 PM on 18-6-1980 from PS Baghpat Constitution, let it be seen whether there was flagrant and gross violation of the fundamental rights in the present case. In the wire-less message (Ext. Ka. 91) sent at 205 PM on 18-6-1980 from PS Baghpat Constitution, let it be seen whether there was flagrant and gross violation of the fundamental rights in the present case. Shri Nilamani Singh has urged that Articles 21 and 22 (2) were trampled in the present case inasmuch as persons were kept detained without they are being produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of 24 hours of arrest excluding the time for the journey from the place of the arrest to the Court of the Magistrate which violated Article 22 (2) of the Constitution and also Article 21 inasmuch as their liberties were curtailed by violating the procedure established by law. It would be apposite at this stage to see what are the powers of the armed forces under the Act under which provision of law services of Assam Rifles were requisitioned to aid the civil power. Though section 4 (C) of the Act empowers the named officer to arrest without warrant any person who has committed cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed or is about to commit a cognizable offence, section 5 of the Act which is in the following language: 1. Arrested persons to be made over the police: Any person arrested and taken into custody under this Act shall be made over to the officer- in-charge of the nearest police station with the least possible delay, together with a report of the circumstances occasioning the arrest. TI requires that the person arrested and taken into custody has to made over to the officer-incharge of the nearest police station with the least possible delay. 2. This Court had occasion to explain the parameters of law in this connection in Nungshitombi Devi (supra ). As explained in that case the requirement of section 5 that the arrested person has to be made over to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station with least possible delay only permits delay due to some physical impossibility to carry its command. 3. The aforesaid position in law has not been challenged before us and rightly inasmuch as the decision of this Court in Nungshitombi stands undisturbed because the Special Leave Petition against this judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29. 4. 83 in SLP No. 2357/83. 4. 3. The aforesaid position in law has not been challenged before us and rightly inasmuch as the decision of this Court in Nungshitombi stands undisturbed because the Special Leave Petition against this judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29. 4. 83 in SLP No. 2357/83. 4. The whole effort of Shri Chetia and for that matter of the learned Government Advocate was to satisfy us that the concerned persons were in fact handed over with the least possible delay. It was sought to be impressed upon us by the learned counsel of the Union of India and other respondents in which effort the Commanding Officer of the Assam Rifles, Manipur Range, also took part, that the difficult terrian and transport difficulties along with the need for maintaining security measures stood in the way of the Assam Rifles to hand over the person taken into custody by it to the nearest police station within even 3/4 days. A map showing the topography of the region was also placed before us to satisfy our mind that the persons taken into custody could not have been handed over, despite desire of the Assam Rifles, to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station within a period of even 3/4 days. According to Shri Chetia the time visualised by section 5 of the Act may extend in some cases up to even 15 days. We were taken aback at this submission and it is this submission which generated heat in the Court because of Shri Nilamani Singh taking exception to this submission which were not pleaded at all in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. As most of the arrested persons belong to Oinam village and as a person named S. Thio from this village was apprehended on 31. 7. 87 and was made over to police on 2. 8. 87 at 1 -40 a. m. which shows that the handing over was within 2 days, Shri Nilamani Singh rightly urged that if the Assam Rifles would have desired handing over of other persons to the police they could have done so, if not within 2 days, definitely within 3 or 4 days. But as in many cases the persons apprehended were handed over after 5 or more days, it was submitted by Shri Nilamani Singh that the constitutional rights of the aforesaid persons were grossly violated. But as in many cases the persons apprehended were handed over after 5 or more days, it was submitted by Shri Nilamani Singh that the constitutional rights of the aforesaid persons were grossly violated. We are satisfied with the submission of Shri Nilamani Singh and being further satisfied that in this public interest litigation on behalf of economically disadvantaged and otherwise dumb person we should grant compensation, we order for payment of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to each of the persons who were handed over to the police after 5 days or more. We have ordered for compensation of Rs. 5,000/- even knowing that in Bhim Singhs case (supra) the compensation awarded was Rs. 50,000/- for delay of 3 days in producing the arrested person before the Magistrate. We have done so as Shri Nilamani Singh fairly demanded compensation of Rs. 5,000/- only for each person. 5. This takes us to the cases of the persons who lost their lives in encounter with the undergrounds. We shall confine Our attention in this regard to B. Va and Ph. Ring about whom mention has been made in Para 5 (a) of the additional affidavit dated 4. 9. 87 filed on behalf of the Assam Rifles. About these two persons it has been stated in the aforesaid para that they died in encounter with the undergrounds when they were moving with the Assam Rifles to recover arms and ammunitions from the hideouts of the undergrounds. This shows that these two persons had met their end while trying to help the Assam Rifles and were moving with them to recover arms and ammunitions from the hideouts of the undergrounds. It has been submitted by Shri Chetia that these two persons were close collaboration of NSCN. We have no material to satisfy us in this regard. This has not been averred even in the affidavit of the Assam Rifles. So far as these two persons are concerned we are therefore satisfied that what has been stated by the Apex Court in Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 355 would apply. May we point out here that after relying on the aforesaid decision this Court had granted compensation amounting to Rs. So far as these two persons are concerned we are therefore satisfied that what has been stated by the Apex Court in Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 355 would apply. May we point out here that after relying on the aforesaid decision this Court had granted compensation amounting to Rs. 20,000/- to each of the family members of the deceased persons who had met their end in police firing in Civil Rule No. 167/88 which was disposed of on 9. 6. 88. We shall award the same amount to the family of the aforesaid two deceased. 6. In the result, the petition stands allowed by ordering award of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to each of the person who were kept in custody of the Assam Rifles for 5 days or more after their apprehension, whose names and details have been giving in the first application filed by the CLAHRO and its affidavit in-rejoinder filed on 10. 8. 87. (The detention of many persons for 5 days or more is apparent from the date of their apprehension as mentioned in the petition or rejoinder, and date of their handing over given in the counter affidavit of the Assam Rifles) In so far as the persons mentioned in the first petition is concerned we shall however not grant any compensation in respect of G. Denial whose name finds place under SI. 8 of the petition. We have excluded him from the list of the persons to get compensation because he had prayed to that effect. We also award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the families of the two deceased named above. Of the awarded amount 25% shall be paid by the State of Manipur and remaining 75% by the Union of India. We have saddled the State also with liability because it cannot shed its responsibility in the matter completely as after all the Assam Rifles was called in aid it. This compensation shall be paid to the petitioner within 6 weeks from today. S. N. Phukan, J.-I agree. .