HARTANBHAI DHANABHAI MEDHA v. STATE — 1993 DIGILAW 409 (GUJ)

K. G. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) AN old emaciated Adivasi Hartanbhai Dhanabhai Medha a petty agriculturist residing in the interior of Lunawada in Panchmahals District a backward area has knocked the doors of this Court by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has made grievances which should disturb the conscience of any right thinking man who believes in democracy and fundamental freedoms including those envisaged by Article 21 of the Constitution Bhura in relation to whom this petition has been filed was the son of the petitioner As stated in the petition Bhura was about 25 years of age He was married and his young wife is about 19 years of age In the early hours of 12/01/1993 Bhura left his house for attending a village fair at a nearby village Bachkaria. One Ratna Nana a forest watchman on duty at Zer nursery allegedly caught Bhura attempting to commit theft of a pulley and some wire from the nursery premises and detained him Sometime later Avinash Ramanlal Pandya the Round Forester of the area respondent No. 3 to the petition came at Zer nursery Ratna Nana therefore informed respondent No. 3 about the fact that Bhura was attempting to commit theft of pulley and wire from the nursery premises and that he had been detained Respondent No. 3 therefore ordered Bhura to mount his motor cycle at the office of the Ran X e Forest Officer (referred to by the witnesses as Ranger ) at Khanpur Admittedly Bhura was brought by respondent No. 3 at the office of the Ranger Khanpur Shri S. V. Chauhan respondent No. 4 to the petition was the Ranger at that office at that time. This happened on 12/01/1993 and since that date Bhura has been mysteriously missing. This happened on 12/01/1993 and since that date Bhura has been mysteriously missing. ( 2 ) THE petitioner who happens to be the father of Bhura has averred in the petition that Bhura was his second son and he had high hopes from Bhura Bhura though an Adivasi had scaled the ladder of education and he was at the relevant time studying in second year B. A. in Shri Lunawada Arts Science and Commerce College Lunawada in Panchmahals District A copy of the identity card issued by the College is produced at Annexure A to the petition As stated earlier Bhura was married and his wife at the date of the petition was about 19 years of age The petitioner has stated that he had great hopes that his son Bhura will after his graduation be able to get a job and thus help the family out of its poverty. It is stated in the petition that Bhura was contemplating to apply for a job on the reservation quota meant for persons belonging to the community dealt with by Baxi Panch. The petitioner has stated that since 12/01/1993 his son Bhura has been missing after he was arrested by respondents No. 3 and 4. We may mention here that respondent No. 1 to the petition is the State of Gujarat represented through I he Home Department and respondent No. 2 to the petition is Government of Gujarat represented through its Secretary in Forest Department. Later on the District Superintendent of Police Panchmahals has been added as respondent No. 5 to the petition ( 3 ) IN the petition the petitioner has further stated that he made all out efforts to find out his son Bhura but to no success. He therefore approached the Government police dept. and other authorities with a request to have his son Bhura restored to him but those efforts on his part have proved unsuccessful. The present petition came to be filed by the petitioner on 29/03/1993 In the petition the petitioner has stated that though more than two months have elapsed no trace of his son Bhura has been forthcoming and he only Knows that his son was last taken into custody by respondents No. 3 and 4 and was seen alive by various persons of village Medana Muvada and other persons of nearby village in the custody of respondents No. 3 and 4. In para 4 of the petition the petitioner has given the names of the persons who had seen his son Bhura last in the custody of respondents No. 3 and 4. Those names are of Pratap Vala Raval Chokidar at Khanpur Range Forest and Dr. Kodarbhai Ranchhodbhai an Ayurvedic doctor of that area In the petition the petitioner has also stated that when the aforesaid two persons had seen his son Bhura in the custody of respondents No. 3 and 4 his son was vomitting blood on account of severe beating given to him by respondent No. 4 Shri S. V. Chauhan Range Forest Officer His further case is that these witnesses were helpless and hapless witnesses to the merciless beating given to his son by respondent No. 4 for they were warned by respondents No. 3 and 4 not to interfere. It is also stated in the petition that Bhura was beaten by respondent No. 4 till he fell unconscious and thereafter respondents No. 3 and 4 threw unconscious Bhura into a room at the Khanpur Range Forest Office and locked him inside that room and thereupon the aforesaid witnesses and others who had gathered near the Range Forest Office dispersed According to the petitioner later on he and his family members and relatives came to know of this incident and since then they have been making extensive search for Bhura but with no success As said in the petition when the petitioner and his other relatives came to know about the incident from the witnesses who had witnessed the incident a meeting of village people was held and representation was taken to respondent No. 4. The representation was led by Shanabhai the elder brother of Bhura and when the representations led by Shanabhai approached respondent No. 4 and asked respondent No. 4 about the whereabouts of Bhura respondent No. 4 told them that Bhura had attempted to steal some wire and pulley from Zernursery but he (respondent No. 4) had already released Bhura from his custody However respondent No. 4 did not disclose to the representationists led by Shanabhai the elder brothel of Bhura as to when and where he had released Bhura. It is the case of the petitioner as staled in paragraph No. 9 of the petition that as respondent No. 4 told the representationists led by Shanabhai the elder brother of Bhura that he (respondent No. 4) had already released Bhura the representationists left the office of respondent No. 4 and returned to their village Medana Muvada in the hope that they would find Bhura in the village However on return to the village they found that that hope had not materialised. Thereafter the petitioner made several representations to the various authorities namely the departments of respondents No. 1 and 2 and ultimately Shanabhai the elder brother of Bhura lodged an information at the police station about the fact that Bhura was missing. After a certain preliminary investigation done by the police Shri J. G. Pandya Circle Police Inspector Lunawada on 4/02/1993 lodged First Information Report at Lunawada Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341 342 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against Arjan Rupa and Ratna Nana the Forest Watchmen Avinash R. Pandya the Round Forester respondent No. 3 and S. V. Chauhan (Ranger) respondent No. 4 On the Strength of that F. I. R an offence has been registered and it is under investigation by the police. ( 4 ) IN the petition the petitioner has slated that in the matter of aforesaid offence registered on the strength of the F. I. R. lodged by Shri J. G. Pandya Circle Police Inspector Lunawada respondents No. 3 and 4 have obtained orders for anticipatory bail from the competent Court. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he has made several representations to the officers of the departments of respondents No. 1 and 2 those officers have shown a cold response to his grievances and have done nothing nor have they traced out his beloved son Bhura. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he has made several representations to the officers of the departments of respondents No. 1 and 2 those officers have shown a cold response to his grievances and have done nothing nor have they traced out his beloved son Bhura. The petitioner has also stated that from what respondents No. 3 and 4 have stated in their application for anticipatory bail he believes that it may be possible that his son Bhura has died in the custody on account of severe beating given to him by respondent No. 4 with a pipe and subsequent lack of timely medical facility having been made available to him ( 5 ) IT is also stated in the petition that Shana Hartan the elder brother of Bhura ultimately filed a private complaint for offences punishable under Sections 302 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against respondents No. 3 and 4 and some other employees of the Forest Department in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Lunawada. It appears that complaint was filed by Shana Hartan on 15/02/1993 The learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Lunawada has under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed the C. I. D. Crime Branch to investigate into that complaint filed by Shana the elder brother of Bhura. It is also the case of the petitioner that respondents No. 1 and 2 and respondents No. 3 and 4 who are its officers are responsible for the disappearance of Bhura. It is also the case of the petitioner that respondents No. 1 and 2 and respondents No. 3 and 4 who are its officers are responsible for the disappearance of Bhura. It is also his case that no one has seen Bhura being released from the custody of respondent No. 4 but number of eye witnesses in fact had seen Bhura being handed over to respondent No. 4 by respondent No. 3 and Bhura was last seen in the custody of respondent No. 4 According to the petitioner therefore he has reason to believe that Bhura is in the custody of respondent No. 4 and/or the other officers of respondent No. 2 and has been confined or restrained by the officers of respondents No. 1 and 2 On these main allegations in the petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs (A) The petitioner therefore prays that this Honble Court may be pleased (B) to direct the respondent No. 1 by way of ad interim relief to search for and produce missing person Bhura Hartan before this Honble Court as expeditiously as possible by issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus; (C) to direct the officers of the respondent No. 2 and in particular the respondents No. 3 and 4 to come before this Honble Court to explain the whereabouts of Bhura Hartan by issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus; (D) to permit the petitioner and his family members and relatives to look for and exhume the body of Bhura Hartan which it is reasonably apprehended has been done away within the forest area; (E)TO hand over the investigation of this case to the Central Bureau of Investigation and direct them to locate the missing person Bhura Hartan by issuing an appropriate writ order or directions; (F) to grant such compensation/reliefs as may be necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case and the established law that the State and its officers are liable in tort; (f) to grant the costs of this petition; (G) to grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of Justice may require. ( 6 ) AS stated earlier this petition came to be filed on 29/03/1993 On Marc 30/03/1993 this Court directed notice pending admission to be issued to the respondents and the notice was made returnable on 5/04/1993 The matter was thereafter adjourned for some time and on 12/04/1993 this Court ordered that the District Superintendent of Police Panchmahals should be joined as a party respondent. That officer was also directed to file an affidavit with regard to the investigation of the matter and whereabouts of missing Bhura. On 21/04/1993 this Court took up the matter for consideration. At that time Mr. N. D. Nanavati learned Advocate for the respondents No. 3 and 4 submitted that the respondents No. 3 and 4 may not be directed to file any affidavit-in-reply to the contentions raised in this petition. After hearing the parties the Court on that day i. e. 21/04/1993 issued Rule on the petition and made it returnable on 27/04/1993 and the Court also stated that it would be open to the respondents No. 3 and 4 to file appropriate affidavit in reply dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner. On 30/04/1993 the Court permitted the petitioner to make search for Bhura in Khanpur Normal Range Forest Area and Mr. C. K. Pardhi Deputy Superintendent of Police who was investigating the offence was directed to accompany the petitioner and his son forthe purpose of carrying out search for Bhura in Khanpur Normal Forest Range Area. It appears that accordingly extensive search was carried out by the petitioner with the assistance of C. K. Pardhi and his police force but Bhura could not be traced out. On J 29/06/1993 this Court directed Shri Pardhi Deputy Superintendent of Police Lunawada to make search and efforts to find out Bhura and in the alternative to produce material before this Court to show that Bhura was no more alive. It was brought to the notice of the Court at that time that the private complaint filed by Shana the elder brother of Bhura was referred by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Lunawada for investigation to the C. I. D. Crime Branch. Therefore the Court also directed the Police Inspector C. I. D. Crime Branch Godhra a to remain present before the Court on 14/07/1993 with all the papers of investigation. Therefore the Court also directed the Police Inspector C. I. D. Crime Branch Godhra a to remain present before the Court on 14/07/1993 with all the papers of investigation. It appears that against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) directing the investigation of the private complaint filed by Shana the elder brother of Bhura to be carried out by C. I. D. Crime Branch Godhra a revision application was filed before the learned Sessions Judge Panchmahals at Godhra. That revision application has ultimately been dismissed by the Sessions Court. By the order dated 21/07/1993 the C. I. D. Crime Branch had been given further time to investigate into the matter and to make a concerted effort to tract out Bhura the matter was adjourned to 12/08/1993 At various stages various police officers submitted the reports before this Court either directly or through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. These reports form part of the record. On 12/08/1993 after perusal of the papers the Court found that the matter was not being pursued by the police officers property and the search and investigation that had been carried out was not wholly in the proper direction. This impression was gathered by the Court for the simple reason that though from the very beginning the names of Dr. Kodarbhai Ranchhodbhai a registered medical practioner and his Assistant Shana Bhema were disclosed as eye witnesses to the brutal assault by respondent No 4 on Bhura were disclosed. The officers of the Crime Branch did not think it fit to record their statements. On 12/08/1993 a pointed grievance was made by Miss Advani learned Advocate for the petitioner about this fact. The Court therefore directed the concerned Police Officer of C. I. D. Crime Branch to record the statements of Kodarbhai Ranchhodbhai and Shana Bhemabhai and submit a further report Accordingly yesterday the Police Inspector Crime Branch Godhra has submitted his report along with copies of statements of Kodarbhai Ranchhodbhai and Shanabhai Bhemabhai. ( 7 ) YESTERDAY the matter was almost fully heard and came to be adjourned for today Till that time on behalf of respondents No 3 and 4 no affidavit-in-reply had been filed though this Court had as early as 21/04/1993 stated that it will be open to respondents No. 3 and 4 to file appropriate affidavits dealing with the contentions raised in the petition. It was only today when we were about to start dictating the judgment that Mr. Nanavati learned Advocate for the respondents No 3 and 4 has tendered the affidavit of respondent No. 4 which we have ordered to be taken on record. ( 8 ) WE have heard Miss Rani Advani learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Y. F. Mehta learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and 5 and Mr. N. D. Nanavati learned Advocate for the respondents No. 3 and 4 We have gone through the various affidavits and reports of the police officers We have also gone through the various statements recorded by the various police officers under our directions and after a careful consideration of the material available on record we are more than convinced that in all probabilities Bhura is not going to be now available We do not want to use a phraseology which would pain anyone and say that Bhura has been done to death But however at the same time we are not prepared to rule out that probability all together. To put it most mildly we would say Bhura is not now going to be available We say this with heavy heart and after careful scrutiny of the material placed before us. The record clearly shows that right from the later part of the day on 12/01/1993 all sincere and all out efforts have been made by all concerned to find out Bhura and yet those efforts have remained unsuccessful. The evidence on record in the shape of the statements of Shana the elder brothel of Bhura recorded by the police officers and the various reports made by the police officers leaves no room for doubt in saying that extensive search has been carried our for Bhura. We cannot overlook the fact that though Bhura had scaled the ladder of education and had reached Second Year B. A. in the Lunawada Arts Science and Commerce College Lunawada he was none the less an Adivasi boy We have seen the petitioner his father before us when he appeared on number of adjourned dates before this Court and we found him to be nothing except a skeleton wrapped in skin and emaciated old man. The version as given by respondents No. 3 and 4 in the statements before the concerned police officers their case is that Ratna the forest guard had reported to respondent No. 3 Mr. Pandya the Round Forester that Bhura was found to be committing theft of some pulley and some wire belonging to the Forest Department inside the premises of Zair Nursery Respondent No. 3 therefore did some amount of questioning to Bhura but Bhura did not open his mouth or did not give proper replies Respondent No 3 therefore brought Bhura from Zair Nursery to Khanpur Forest Office. Then according to respondents No. 3 and 4 as they have stated before police officers repondent No. 4 also in the open compound of the Range Forest Office tried to question Bhura but Bhura was as elusive as anything and then the version of respondents No. 3 and 4 is that they decided to hand over Bhura to the concerned police officer With that end in view respondent No. 4 entered the office building of the Range Forest Office for the purpose of contacting the concerned police officer on phone At that very time respondent No. 3 the Forest had an urge to urinate He therefore went towards rear of the Forest Office for that purpose and when he returned after urinating he found that Bhura was not there in the compound and respondent No. 4 was sitting in the compound as if unconcerned Respondent No. 4 would have us believe that he had already talked to the concerned police officer on phone that a man who was found to be committing theft of forest property was brought to him and that he was sending that man to the police station When respondent No 3 returned after urinating as stated above he found respondent No. 4 sitting in the compound as if unconcerned and respondent No. 3 asked respondent No 4 about Bhura and respondent No. 4 said that Bhura was not there Both respondents No. 3 and 4 would proceed further to say in their statements before the police that thereafter they just ignored the matter did not inform the police about Bhura having vanished in thin air for the reason that it was a theft of a very petty item and the Forest Department had not suffered any financial loss. This story dished out by respondents No. 3 and 4 may appear to be a good material for a fairy tale but in a Court of law we are more than convinced that it cannot be accepted even for a minute We have hereinabove pointed out as to what Bhura perhaps was or could have been Assuming the version of respondents No 3 and 4 that he was found to be committing theft of a pulley and some wire and was therefore brought by respondent No. 3 at the Range Forest at Khanpur and was found by respondent No. 4 on interrogation to be a tough nut who did not give proper answers and it was therefore that respondents No. 3 and 4 were required to think in terms of handing him over to the police and towards that goal respondent No. 4 from within the office building by means of telephone contacted the police officer and at that very time coincidentally respondent No. 3 developed an urge to urinate and he went at the rear of the office building for that purpose we are sure that Bhura could not have even in his wildest dreams thought of escaping from that place Bhura was an Adivasi He was accosted by respondent No 3 a Round Forester was brought by means of a motor cycle from Zair Nursery to Khanpur Range Forest Office; where respondent No. 4 had tried to interrogate him Bhura would have immediately realised that he was in the hands of persons who could wield authority and in the set of circumstances in which he was placed at that time an idea to escape taking advantage of the temporary absence of respondents No. 3 and 4 would be far from the farthest on his mental screen He was very much alive to the fact that respondent No. 3 had a motor cycle on which he would immediately just within a minute catch hold of him and again drag him to the Range Forest Office Bhura did not have the facility of any automobile with him nor even he had a bicycle with him If he escaped as respondents No. 3 and 4 would have it the only mode of escape would be his feet and with the unforgettable fact that respondent No. 3 had only a little while ago brought him from Zair Nursery to Khanpur Range Forest Office on a motor cycle how at all could Bhura think in terms of running away from the compound of the Range Forest Office by means of his feet ? Considering the matter from this angle itself and presently keeping away the story advanced by the witnesses to which we will presently advert the contention of respondents No. 3 and 4 about Bhura having escaped from the compound of the Range Forest Office is a figment of imagination which is required to be rejected outright: ( 9 ) THERE is another angle to this aspect of the matter. It is the case of respondents No 3 and 4 that Bhura was in the process of committing theft of a pulley and some wile belonging to the Forest Department in Zair Nursery At that very place respondent No. 3 had tried to interrogate him but to no success Respondent No 3 therefore brought him to the higher forest officer namely respondent No. 4 Respondent No. 4 also tried to interrogate him but again to no success. Therefore they decided to hand over Bhura to police officer. It is the say of respondent No 4 that he contacted police officer by means of telephone from the office building and yet we are now asked to accept the theory that once Bhura vanished respondents No 3 and 4 dropped the idea of informing the police about his having vanished If Bhura was accused of having committed theft or of having attempted to commit theft of some forest property and that led to respondents No. 3 and 4 to think in terms of handing him over to the police respondents No. 3 and 4 just could not be believed when they say that they dropped the idea of carrying the matter further with the police once they found that Bhura had escaped for the simple reason that the theft was of the property of a very petty amount and that the Forest Department had not sustained any sizeable financial loss. This theory advanced by respondents No. 3 and 4 we are just not prepared to accept To sum up on the case advanced by respondents No. 3 and 4 in their statements before the police we would only say that the theory that after Bhura was brought to the Range Forest Office he escaped taking advantage of the temporary absence of respondents No. 3 and 4 is so incredulous that it is required to be rejected outright. If Bhura had escaped as respondents No. 3 and 4 would have it they were duly bound and would certainly have informed the police about that fact but they have not done that Looking to the social status of Bhura he could just not have thought of escaping ( 10 ) COMING to the other side of the picture as emerges from the evidence we have witnesses Kodarbhai and Shana Bhema who have stated before the police officer that when they were going for their work they found hubbub near the Range Forest Office at Khanpur. Out of curiosity therefore they stopped there and they witnessed that Bhura was silting beneath a tree in front of the Forest Range Office and Shri Pandya the Forester (Zamadar) (respondent No. 3 herein) was also sitting there and the Range Forest Officer then emerged from the office and came near those persons and he with his shoes on gave kick blows to Bhura on his abdomen as also on back with the result that Bhura tumbled down and raised shrieks. As stated by Kodarbhai Pratapvala (the Forest Guard) and Shri Pandya (respondent No. 3 ) caught hold of Bhura and made him stand up In the meanwhile the Forest Ranger (respondent No. 4) went inside the office building and immediately came out carrying an iron pipe in his hand. That pipe was about 3 in length Respondent No 4 by means of that pipe gave one blow to Bhura on his back and another blow by means of that pipe on the backside of the head of Bhura. On receiving these blows Bhura once again fell on the ground with his face towards the earth Shri Pandya (respondent No 3) and Pratapvala (Forest Guard) once again placed Bhura on the ground with his face towards the sky Some water was poured in the mouth of Bhura by means of the pipe As stated by Kodarbhai at that time he asked the Forest Ranger as to why he had beaten the boy (Bhura) so severely and what was the offence committed by that boy At that time respondent No. 4 the Ranger told Kodarbhai not to interfere in the Government work and to go away from the place. The Ranger also told Kodarbhai that if he did not obey his (Rangers) orders he would also meet the same fate According to Kodarbhai at that time the Ranger (respondent No. 4) also pointed a pistol at him Accordingly to Kodarbhai thereafter Shri Pandya (respondent No 3 and Pratapvala and others lifted Bhura and lodged him in the room in the building housing the office of the Ranger and locked that room to the similar effect is the statement of Shana Bhema Assistant of Kodarbhai who was with Kodarbhai at that time ( 11 ) THE statement of Shana Hartan the elder brothel of the deceased and the other material on record clearly go to show that as Bhura did not return home Shana and the petitioner and others started in search of Bhura and they came to know from Kodarbhai about the aforesaid incident. They therefore approached respondent No. 4 and demanded the whereabouts of Bhura and at that time respondent No. 4 told them that as Bhura had committed theft of some forest property he was taken in custody but was later on released. Taking the word of respondent No. 4 at its face value Shana the elder brother of Bhura and his relatives and others who had gone in search of Bhura returned home in the fond hope that Bhura might have returned home but they found that Bhura had not returned home He was nowhere to be found Few days later once again Shana the elder brother of Bhura and his relatives again met respondent No. 4 and demanded to know the whereabouts of Bhura But the reply of respondent No 4 was quite evasive However he persisted in his stand that he had taken Bhura in custody as Bhura had committed theft of forest property but later on he had released Bhura. Now these facts as appearing from the statements of witnesses clearly make the stand off respondents No. 3 and 4 taken by them in their later statements quite contradictory. Now these facts as appearing from the statements of witnesses clearly make the stand off respondents No. 3 and 4 taken by them in their later statements quite contradictory. In their statements respondents No. 3 and 4 purported to say that taking the advantage of temporary absence of respondents No. 3 and 4 from the compound of the building of the Range Forest Office Bhura had escaped while before the relatives of Bhura respondent No. 4 while admitting that he had taken Bhura into custody in connection with theft of some forest property stated that he had later on released Bhura Now firstly if we go by the stand taken by the respondents No 3 and 4 as stated by them before the police officer who recorded the statements they had never taken Bhura in custody and respondent No. 4 had simply interrogated him and soon then Bhura vanished in thin air If that was so there was no question of respondent No 4 being required to release Bhura Therefore the stands taken by the respondents No. 3 and 4 at different points of time are contradictory to each other However the fact remains that admittedly and undisputedly Bhura had been taken to the Range Forest Office of respondent No. 3 and was so to say handed over to respondent No. 4. To put it differently he was last seen alive either in the custody or under the surveillance of respondents No. 3 and 4. ( 12 ) THERE is one other aspect of the matter which is required to be noticed. As indicated hereinabove the Circle Police Inspector J. G. Pandya had lodged first information report at the police station for offences under Sections 341 342 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Therein respondents No. 3 4 and some other forest employees were named as the accused. In connection with the offence registered on the basis of that F. I. R. respondents No. 3 and 4 and some other forest employees moved the Court of Sessions Panchmahals at Godhra for an order for anticipatory bail and that application was the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 67 of 1993. In connection with the offence registered on the basis of that F. I. R. respondents No. 3 and 4 and some other forest employees moved the Court of Sessions Panchmahals at Godhra for an order for anticipatory bail and that application was the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 67 of 1993. In that application respondents No. 3 and 4 contended that Bhura was found moving about in Zair Nursery with a view to committing theft and he was arrested there and was brought to Khanpur Forest Range Office and at that time Bhura escaped by avoiding the attention of respondents No. 3 and 4 and that respondents No. 3 and 4 did not know as to where he went out. Now this statement made by respondents No. 3 and 4 in their application for anticipatory bail make it clear that they had arrested Bhura and had brought him to Range Forest Office at Khanpur and there as he stated in the anticipatory bail application Bhura avoided the attention of respondents No. 3 and 4 and escaped. One fails to see how Bhura could have successfully avoided the attention of respondents No. 3 and 4 and escapd. In this application they have not stated that they were temporarily absent from the compound and taking advantage of their temporary absence Bhura escaped. Here their stand is positive. They contend that Bhura avoided or averted their attention and escaped. It would be too much to believe that an Adivasi boy could successfully avert or avoid the attention of a Range Forest Officer and a Round Forester. ( 13 ) IT is also interesting to note that except saying that they just did not pursue the matter after they found that Bhura escaped it is not their case that they made any search for Bhura once they found Bhura having escaped. ( 13 ) IT is also interesting to note that except saying that they just did not pursue the matter after they found that Bhura escaped it is not their case that they made any search for Bhura once they found Bhura having escaped. If according to them Bhura had either committed theft of forest property or had attempted to commit theft and he was therefore a person accused of a crime and it was therefore that he was brought to the Range Forest Office and as stated by them before the concerned police officer they had contemplated to hand him over to the police it would be too much to believe that having found that Bhura had escaped they just dropped the curtain over the matter on the specious plea that the theft involved was of insignificant property and that the Forest Department had not sustained any financial loss. ( 14 ) THE material placed before us goes to show that since 12/01/1993 till this date extensive search for finding out either the body of Bhura of his earthly remains if he has died has been carried out. The reports of the police officers tiled at various stages of the proceedings go to show that announcement about invitation to supply whereabouts of Bhura to the police officers was made by beat of drum in various villages. Announcement in the police gazette and the Television announcement about the fact that Bhura is missing and inviting general public to supply particulars about him have also been extensively made. The officers of C. I. D. Crime Branch had also made efforts to trace out Bhura. Even the petitioner under the orders of this Court with the help of the police officers carried out extensive search in the concerned Forest Normal Range Area but till today neither Bhura in flesh and blood has been traced out nor material about he having died has been collected. Even the petitioner under the orders of this Court with the help of the police officers carried out extensive search in the concerned Forest Normal Range Area but till today neither Bhura in flesh and blood has been traced out nor material about he having died has been collected. He was last seen alive on 12/01/1993 Today we are in the first week of September 1993 About eight months have elapsed Bhura though he had college education was certainly not that sophisticated a citizen who could have voluntarily gone incommunicado for some undisclosed reason Apparently he had no reason to hide himself from his father mother wife and other relatives Even assuming that he was found to be attempting to commit theft or that he had committed theft of a pulley and wire that was not such a serious thing which would require Bhura to hide himself incognito for eight months and keep away from his family members He was an Adivasi a man belonging to backward strata of the society He was residing in the interior of jungle area in a small hamlet He would have no earthly reason not to surface in his area once he was either released by Forest Officer or as those officers would have us believe that he escaped from their custody If he was a man who could escape and he did so from the custody of the forest officers his immediate next destination would be his home He has not gone there and though there is no positive evidence about Bhura having died on the facts as they are established on record to put it at the minimum we are impelled to say that as extensive search for finding out Bhura has not yielded results now there is not a ghost of chance of Bhura ever appearing before the Court or before his relatives Even at the cost of repetition we would say that he was last seen alive either in custody or under the surveillance of respondents No. 3 and 4. The theory that he escaped from their custody is just not acceptable ( 15 ) ON the other hand the evidence of Kodarbhai and Shana Bhema clearly that the Range Forest Officer respondent No. 4 had first assaulted Bhura by means of kick blows when he had put on shoes and then respondent No 4 assaulted him by means of iron pipe of 3 length and a blow was given by respondent No. 4 on the backside of the head of Bhura and immediately Bhura fell down and he vomitted blood We have no reason to disbelieve these statements of Kodarbhai and Shana Bhema. Their statements further go to how that when Kodarbhai tried to protest about the behaviour of respondent No. 4 the latter silenced Kodarbhai at the point of pistol and asked Kodarbhai to go away from the place on the pain of meeting the same fate as Bhura had met. Though Kodarbhai is a registered medical practitioner he is simple S. S. C. and he holds some licence from some Ayurvedic institution to practise medicine and since some years he is practising medicine in the backward areas at and around the village where Bhura was residing We cannot expect that enlightenment from him as we would expect from a regular medical practitioner practising medicine in sophisticated city This is one and secondly he was scared away on the point of a pistol None the less when Shana the elder brother of Bhura and others met him he immediately disclosed to them that Bhura had been beaten by the Range Forest Officer and was locked up in a room at the Range Forest Office We have not the least hesitation in accepting the statements of Kodarbhai and his. Assistant Shana Bhemabhai. They go to show that respondent No. 4 had assaulted Bhura mercilessly beaten him to such an extent that Bhura vomitted blood and thereafter Bhura was confined in a room which was thereafter locked Since that time no one claims to have seen Bhura alive Once these statements are accepted the finding inevitable would be that Bhura was last seen alive in the custody of respondents No 3 and 4 Soon before he was confined in the room he was mercilessly beaten and he had vomitted blood and thereafter he has not been seen alive by anyone in about eight months. These tell-tale circumstances would clearly impel us to say that Bhura is now not going to surface and he is not going to be seen alive by anyone eventhough we may not as stated earlier use the word that Bhura had died. ( 16 ) ONE more aspect may be noticed As stated earlier till yesterday respondents No. 3 and 4 had not filed any affidavit-in- reply. Today however Mr. Nanavati learned Advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4 has tendered the affidavit-in-reply sworn by respondent No. 4. That is a short affidavit and the only thing which requires to be noticed in that affidavit is what he has stated as follows"with regard to the incident in question I have no personal knowledge. Therefore I am not in a position to depose on oath before this Honourable Court. I do not know Bhura Hartan personally. I cannot identify the said person even if he meets me I have never seen him of met him Under the circumstances I am not in a position to throw any more light about the whereabouts of said Bhura Hartan". Now these statements made by respondent No. 4 show a complete somersault taken by respondent No. 4 and in that connection one more aspect may be noticed that this affidavit has been sworn by respondent No. 4 as early as 29/04/1993 before a Notary Mr. M. I. Hava and yet the same was not produced before this Court till this date This would go to show that respondent No 4 wanted to sit on the fence and see in which direction the wind blew and modulate his course of action accordingly As we said earlier after arguing the matter at length and finding the trend of the Court and after hearing the arguments of Miss Advani and partly of Mr. Mehta Mr. Mehta Mr. Nanavati chose to put in this affidavit sworn as early as 29/04/1993 and therein the respondent No 4 disowns any knowledge about the incident He is therefore not in a position to depose on oath before the Court He says he does not know Bhura Hartan and he cannot identify even if Bhura Hartan meets him and he had never seen him Now these statements are quite contrary to his statements made by him before the police officers as also the statements made by him in the anticipatory bail application How could such man who makes such contradictory statements at different points of time at all be believed ? This aspect we have highlighted little later in our Judgment for the fact that the affidavit was rendered only at the fag end of the proceeding and when we were about to commence dictating the judgment Be that as it may the stand taken by respondents No. 3 and 4 at different points of time are so evidently contradictory that they cannot be accepted As against this the statements of Kodarbhai and Shana Bhema inspite a lot of confidence not only from the contents thereof bur even from their subsequent conduct in as much as on the same day Kodarbhai informed Shanabhai the elder brothel of Bhura about the incident and that led Shanabhai and other to the office of respondent No 4 who told them that though he had taken Bhura in custody he had later on released Bhura. ( 17 ) HAVING scrutinised the evidence we reject the stand taken by respondents No 3 and 4 and accept the fact that emerges from the statements of Kodarbhai and Shana Bhema and on that basis we hold that Bhura had been taken in custody by respondents No. 3 and 4 He was belaboured by respondent No. 4 so much so that he vomitted blood from his mouth and thereafter Bhura was confined in a room which came to be locked by respondents No. 3 and 4. ( 18 ) MR. Y. F. Mehta learned Additional Public Prosecutor very strenuously contended that assuming everything that is alleged by the petitioner and sought to be established by him to be true the State of Gujarat cannot be held responsible for the acts attributed to respondents No. 3 and 4. In other words according to Mr. ( 18 ) MR. Y. F. Mehta learned Additional Public Prosecutor very strenuously contended that assuming everything that is alleged by the petitioner and sought to be established by him to be true the State of Gujarat cannot be held responsible for the acts attributed to respondents No. 3 and 4. In other words according to Mr. Metha the act of respondents No. 3 and 4 of having beaten Bhura as is alleged by the petitioner cannot bind the State of Gujarat. Mr. Mehta nextly submitted that in writ jurisdiction like this under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Court itself should not elaborately scrutinise the evidence and record findings of facts and if any liability on the State of Gujarat is sought to be foisted that could be done only after a regular enquiry is conducted by an officer of the rank of a District Judge under the orders of this Court where the parties are given opportunity to lead evidence and unless that is done no liability on the State could be foisted. Mr. Mehta submitted that the statements of respondents No. 3 and 4 as also of Kodarbhai and Shana Bhema as also of Shana the elder brother of Bhura recorded by the police officers cannot be the sole basis for fixing the liability of the State for in his submission the investigation into the crimes said to have been committed by respondents No. 3 and 4 is not yet over and the investigation and the enquiry by the C. I. D. Crime Branch ordered by the Magistrate is also not over and the charge-sheet has not been filed. Both Mr. Mehta and Mr. Nanavati also submitted that there is no evidence about the death of Bhura and therefore also no liability on the State could be foisted and in the submission of Mr. Nanavati on that very line no liability could also be foisted upon the respondents No. 3 and 4. As we will presently point out all these arguments advanced by Mr. Mehta and Mr. Nanavati learned Advocate for the respondents No. 3 and 4 are answered by the authoritative pronouncements to which we will presently refer. Nanavati on that very line no liability could also be foisted upon the respondents No. 3 and 4. As we will presently point out all these arguments advanced by Mr. Mehta and Mr. Nanavati learned Advocate for the respondents No. 3 and 4 are answered by the authoritative pronouncements to which we will presently refer. ( 19 ) IN the case of Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1984 SC 571 (to be referred to as the First Hongray Case) admittedly Shri C. Paul and Shri C. Daniel were taken away by the Army Jawans of 21st Sikh Regiment to Phungrei Camp on 10/03/1982 from village Huining and since then they mysteriously disappeared and nothing was heard about them. Sebastian M. Hongray a student of Political Science studying in Jawaharlal Nehru University at Delhi moved a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Defence; Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs the State of Manipur through its Chief Secretary and the Commandant 21 Sikh Regiment Phungrei Camp were No. 1 to 4 respectively to the petition. On behalf of the authorities of the Union of India and the Commandant 21 Sikh Regiment it was admitted that C. Daniel and C. Paul were of course on 10/03/1982 taken to Phungrei Camp but they were so taken for the purpose of identifying some suspects and after the work of identification was over C. Daniel and C. Paul were permitted to leave the Army Camp but as it was evening time and it was dangerous to travel at night on account of fear of insurgents both of them preferred to spend the night at the Army Camp and on the next morning they left the army camp in company of H. L. Machihan and C. Shangnam. Thus according to the contesting respondents though C. Daniel and C. Paul were admittedly taken to the Army Camp they were taken there as respectable persons for the purpose of identifying certain suspects and after the work of identification was over they were permitted to leave the Army Camp but on account of fear of insurgents they craved permission to stay overnight at the Army Camp and such a permission was granted to them and on the next day when Shri Machihan a village Headman and C. Shangnam village authority member came at the gate of the Army Camp for the purpose of enquiring about those two persons those two persons namely C. Paul and C. Daniel were permitted to go along with Shri Machihan and Shri Shangnam and thereafter the Army authorities did not know about the whereabouts of those two persons Large mass of evidence was tendered before the Supreme Court in the shape of statements affidavits entries in the registers etc. The matter was adjourned from time to time Ultimately their Lordships of the Supreme Court scrutinised the material in great details and wholly rejecting the contentions of the contesting respondents held that once C. Paul and C. Daniel admittedly were brought into Army Camp the burden was upon respondents No. 1 2 and 4 i. e. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Defence; Union of India through the Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs and the Commandant of 21st Sikh Regiment Phungrei Camp at Ukhrul to substantiate their contention that C. Daniel and C. Paul left Phungrei Camp on 11/03/1982 On evidence Their Lordships of the Supreme Court negatived that stand taken by the contesting respondents As said above Their Lordships scrutinised the evidence in minute details. This aspect of the matter as it emerges from the decision in First Hongray Case would make it amply clear that in a case like this the Court has ample powers to scruninise the material in great details and come to a finding of fact if the facts of the case so warrant in paragraph 13 of the judgment in the First Hongray Case this is what. Their Lordships have said"in a writ petition under Article 32 rarely if ever pleadings are meticulously extracted and reproduced in the judgment. Their Lordships have said"in a writ petition under Article 32 rarely if ever pleadings are meticulously extracted and reproduced in the judgment. It however became a compelling necessity in this case for the obvious reason that certain inferences were drawn and submitted for the consideration of this Court by both sides after referring to facts admitted and/or not controverted We would therefore be justified in deducing the indisputable fact situation that emerges from the rival affidavits and then proceed to draw necessary permissible inferences that flow from them". This would show that if the case so warrants even in a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India the Supreme Court and on a parity of reasoning under Article 226 the High Court would have powers to refer to the facts of the case in meticulous details and draw permissible inferences therefrom. The argument of Mr. Mehta that no writ petition like this the Court should not investigate facts in details therefore cannot be accepted ( 20 ) MR. Mehta submitted that before this Court undertakes the exercise of investigating facts it should hand over the enquiry to a District Judge and only after the report of the District Judge is received that this Court should try to fasten any liability upon any of the respondents Mr. Mehta took the cue for this argument from the decision in the case of Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and Others reported in Judgment. Today 1993 (2) S. C. 503 We will presently refer to that judgment and see that in that case it was because of the fact that there was a controversy relating to the cause of death of Suman Behera that. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court directed the concerned District Judge to hold an enquiry and at that enquiry parties were given a chance to lead evidence. On behalf of the petitioner in that case it was contended that Suman Behera the son of the petitioner was beaten while he was in police custody and died as a result of that beating. On behalf of the contesting respondents it was contended that though Suman Behera had been taken into custody he (Suman Behera) escaped from the custody at 3. 00 a. m. and was in all probabilities run over by a running train for his dead body was found near railway track. On behalf of the contesting respondents it was contended that though Suman Behera had been taken into custody he (Suman Behera) escaped from the custody at 3. 00 a. m. and was in all probabilities run over by a running train for his dead body was found near railway track. Thus on one hand the contention was that Suman Behera died as a result of injuries sustained by him at the hands of some police officers while in custody on the other hand that proposition was denied and it was contended that Suman Behera escaped from police custody with handcuffs and ropes and he was found dead near a railway track with injuries therefore in all probabilities he was run over by a train. It was to resolve this controversy thai. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court directed the concerned District Judge to hold an enquiry and permit the parties to lead evidence on this controversial issue Such is not the fact situation before us Here firstly as said above there is no positive evidence about Bhura having died but impelled by evidence we would only say that there is now not a ghost of a chance of Bhura ever being seen alive by anybody. There is evidence to show that Bhura was mercilessly beaten and he had vomitted blood of course till 4th February no police action was taken though relatives of Bhura had time and again approached the police officers. The police swung into action only after 4th March when the Circle Police Inspector lodged an F. I. R as stated above. It would now at this juncture be impossible to find any tangible evidence about beating given to Bhura or any other piece of evidence near the Range Forest Office going to show that Bhura was beaten near the office and had vomitted blood there. In the facts and circumstances no useful purpose is going to be served by appointing either a District Judge of any other independent body or officer to hold an enquiry as was done in the case of Smt. Nilabati (supra) The argument of Mr. Mehta that unless an enquiry as was conducted at the hands of District Judge in the case of Nilabati (supra) is conducted in this case no liability could be foisted upon the State or its officers is required to be rejected. . Mehta that unless an enquiry as was conducted at the hands of District Judge in the case of Nilabati (supra) is conducted in this case no liability could be foisted upon the State or its officers is required to be rejected. . ( 21 ) REVERTING to the decision in the First Hongray case it may be noticed that. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court rejected the stand taken by the Army authority and the Union of India about the missing persons having been allowed to leave the Army Camp on 11/03/1982 and finding that those missing persons were last seen alive under the control of and custody of the Army officers the Court had first issued a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the officers to produce the body of the missing person and that Writ having not been obeyed admittedly as is seen form the case its Sabastian M. Hongray v. Union of India (AS 1084 SC 1026) (the Second Hongray Case ). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court directed that the wives of those two missing persons be paid by the Union of India by way of exemplary costs a sum of Rs. 1. 00 lakh each In the opinion of. Their Lordships the wives of those missing persons had to suffer torture agony and mental oppression on account of their respective husbands having been made to disappear In that case as slated above the petition was moved by a student of Political Science However the award was made in favour of the respective wives of those two missing persons in the sum of Rs. 1. 00 lakh for each ( 22 ) IN the case of Peoples Union for Democratic Rights and Another v. Police Commissioner Delhi Police Headquarters reported in (1989) 4 SCC 730 the facts were that the police collected poor people and took them to the police station for doing some work. They were asked to work without labour charges On demand they were beaten and it appears that one of them Ram Swaroop succumbed to the inquires and the body had also been disposed of Another woman-labourer was allegedly stripped of her clothes and was thrashed at the police station. They were asked to work without labour charges On demand they were beaten and it appears that one of them Ram Swaroop succumbed to the inquires and the body had also been disposed of Another woman-labourer was allegedly stripped of her clothes and was thrashed at the police station. The other eight labourers were also beaten up at the police station Deputy Commissioner of Police in his affidavit frankly admitted the atrocities committed by the police officers and spoke about some action having been taken and the station house officer having been ar rested. The matter was pending investigation for criminal prosecution. On those facts. Their Lordships directed the family of Ram Swaroop to be paid Rs. 50 0 as compensation. Their Lordships also directed that after investigation and enquiry if the officers were found to be guilty the amount paid as compensation or part thereof may be recovered from those officers out of their salary after giving them opportunity to show cause. Their Lordships also said that that order will not prevent any lawful action for compensation but in case some compensation is ordered by a competent Court then the amount awarded by. Their Lordships should be given credit Both in the First Hongray Case as also in the case of Peoples Union for Democratic Rights (supra) through its Secretary the dead body of the persons concerned were never traced and in the Hongray case there was no direct evidence about the missing persons having died. Though of course it appears that in the other case namely the Peoples Union (supra) case there was evidence of Rana having sustained injuries while he was with the police None the less his body had been disposed of and yet on those facts the Supreme Court awarded compensation This fact would certainly negative the contention of Mr. Mehta and Mr. Nanavati that as the dead body of Bhura has not been traced no award of compensation can be made ( 23 ) IN the Second Hongray Case. Their Lordships recorded a finding that further adjourning the matter to enable the respondents to tract and locale the two missing persons is to shut the eyes to reality and to pursue a mirage. Their Lordships recorded a finding that further adjourning the matter to enable the respondents to tract and locale the two missing persons is to shut the eyes to reality and to pursue a mirage. Their Lordships also said that as they were inclined to direct registration of an offence and an investigation they expressed no opinion as to what fate had befallen to Shri C. Daniel and Shri C. Paul the missing two persons save and except that they have not met their tragic end in an encounter and the only possible inference that could be drawn from the circumstances was that both of them must have met an unnatural death. Their Lordships further said that prima facie it would be an offence of murder However. Their Lordships said that who is individually or collectively the perpetrator of the crime or is responsible for their disappearance will have to be determined by a proper thorough and responsible police investigation. Their Lordships further said that it was not necessary to start casting a doubt on anyone or any particular person But prima facie there was material on record to reach an affirmative conclusion that both Shri C. Daniel and Shri C. Paul were not alive and have met an unnatural death and the Union of India cannot disown the responsibility in that behalf23a Thus applying the principle as enunciated by. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the First Hongray Case (supra) and Second Hongray Case (supra) it is clear to us that detailed investigation of facts could be made in such a case if the facts of the case so warrant and it is not necessary for us to direct an enquiry to be conducted by 7 a District Judge or any other officer as was requested by Mr. Mehta Secondly we hold that on the facts as they appear before us prima facie we are inclined to say that Bhura is now not going to appear before anyone and for his disappearance respondents No. 3 and 4 may prima facie be liable but State of Gujarat is certainly liable. In Smt. Nilabati (supra) the question of the liability of the State in such cases has been examined by. In Smt. Nilabati (supra) the question of the liability of the State in such cases has been examined by. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in details and a distinction has been pointed out between a private action in tort and a public action Under Article 32 before the Supreme Court and Article 226 before the High Court in case of breach of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India In the case of Nilabati (supra) the Hongray cases have been considered and quite a large number of other judgments including the well-known case in Rudul Suh (1983) 3 SCR 508 have been considered and the proposition of law deduced by. Their Lordships of Supreme Court is that if once the fundamental right of a citizen is violated the States liability for contravention thereof arises and the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity would not be applicable. The decision in Kasturialal case which recognised the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity has been explained in Smt. Nilabati Case (supra ). In Smt. Nilabatis case (supra) Suman Behera the son of the petitioner was taken into police custody and as found by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court on the facts of the case he was beaten to death A petition for compensation under Article 32 of the Constitution was moved and Their Lordships of the Supreme Court after analysing all the earlier judgments bearing on the facts said that liability of the State of Orissa to pay compensation could not be doubted and was not disputed by the learned Solicitor General In Smt. Nilabati case (supra) also Their Lordships of the Supreme Court examined the evidence afresh after the receipt of the report of the District Judge and reached the same conclusion as was reached by the District Judge namely that the stand of the authority that Suman Behera had escaped from police custody was not proved In that case Suman Behera was an young boy of 22 years and had a monthly income between Rs. 1200-1500 per month Their Lordships of the Supreme Court awarded compensation to the petitioner the mother of Suman Behera in the sum of Rs. 1200-1500 per month Their Lordships of the Supreme Court awarded compensation to the petitioner the mother of Suman Behera in the sum of Rs. 1 50 0 against the State of Orissa ( 24 ) IN Re: Death of Sawinder Singh Grover with Shri Dilip K. Basu v. State of West Bengal reported in Judgment Today 1992 (6) SC 271 Their Lordships of the Supreme Court by way of interim compensation awarded ex gratia payment in the sum of rupees two lakhs in connection with the death of one Sawinder Singh Grover. The matter had not been finally investigated at the time when the Supreme Court made the direction and Their Lordships of the Supreme Court awarded to the wife of Sawinder Singh as said above rupees two lakhs by way of interim compensation to be paid by the Union of India/directorate of Enforcement. ( 25 ) SAHELI A Women s Resources Centre v. Commissioner of Police Delhi Police Headquarters and Others (1990) 1 SCC 422 on the finding that the alleged landlord as also the concerned police officer beat Naresh a boy of nine years mercilessly as a result of which Naresh developed certain complications and ultimately died Their Lordships of Supreme Court awarded to the mother of Naresh compensation in the sum of Rs. 75 000. 00 to be payable by the Delhi Administration. In that case also Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have analysed the facts in considerable details ( 26 ) AS stated earlier Mr. Mehta I submitted that the State of Gujarat would in any case not be liable for the acts attributed to the respondents No. 3 and 4. In other words Mr. Mehta claimed for the State of Gujar at Sovereign Immunity. That contention is just to be negatived for in the cases referred to earlier the State has been held responsible even if the fundamental rights of citizens had been violated by their employees Here the State of Gujarat is made a party to the petition and both the Home Department and the Forest Department have been impleaded Respondents No. 3 and 4 ale the officers of employees of Forest Department Bhura was last seen alive under their custody. They have put up a theory about his escape which we have hereinabove rejected. It would be for them to explain the whereabouts of Bhura. They have not explained those whereabouts. They have put up a theory about his escape which we have hereinabove rejected. It would be for them to explain the whereabouts of Bhura. They have not explained those whereabouts. On the contrary they have at different points of time come out with different contradictory stands and we are not in a position to rule out the probability that Bhura has died as a result of beating given to him by respondent No. 4. There is evidence to show that after he was beaten Bhura was locked up in a loon) and Kodarbhai and others were scaled away. In a thick forest it would not at all be difficult for person like respondents No 3 and 4 to dispose of the body of a dead man either by but lying of by cremating it. It is only on this hypothesis that the failure on the part of the police officers and others to it ace out the evidence about the death of Bhura if he has died could be explained and should I be explained ( 27 ) IT was submitted by Mr. Mehta and Mr. Nanavati that the statements recorded by the police officers in this case cannot form the sole basis for foisting the liability either on respondents No. 3 and 4 or upon the State of Gujarat. That argument has no merit In a writ jurisdiction the modalities of the procedure are entirely upon the discretion of the Court of course that discretion has to be exercised in a sound manner No. hard and fast rule could be laid down as to the nature of evidence that should be filed before the Court and there is no bar against is court relying upon the statements recorded by the police officers in such proceedings especially when this Court itself has directed the police offices to carry out the search for Bhura and investigate into the matter and the statements have been recorded by the police officers during such investigations We put a pointed question to Mr. Mehta whether he wanted to put his argument so high as to say that the statements recorded by the police officer could never be looked into and we must Say in fairness to him that he immediately said that he did not put his argument that high His contention was that those statements recorded by the police officer cannot be the sole basis for recording the finding that Bhura was beaten by respondent No 4 that he was confined in a loom that he did not escape as canvassed by respondents No. 3 and 4 and that he was last seen alive under the custody and/or arrest and /of surveillance by/of respondents Now. 3 and 4 We ale afraid the submission cannot be accepted. As said above there is no bar against this court relying upon such statements recorded by the police officers and accepting them if otherwise they deserve acceptance on the consideration of the totality of the material produced before the Court. The totality of the material does inspire confidence in us that the statements have been faithfully recorded by the police officers and further that Kodarbhai and Shana Bhema have made statements of true facts and the inference drawn by us becomes inevitable. A further inevitable inference is that the stand taken by respondents No. 3 and 4 is a got up and concocted stand. Therefore there should be no bar in making these statements recorded by the police officer the anticipatory bail application and other material produced before us the basis for the findings that we have arrived at hereinabove. The contention to the contrary raised by Mr. Mehta and Mr. Nanavati is rejected ( 28 ) HAVING considered all the submissions of Mr. Mehta and Mr. Nanavati we are more than convinced that this is eminently a fit case where this Court following the authorities referred to hereinabove direct payment of compensation to the persons affected by the disappearance/death of Bhura Three questions then crop up (1) Who should be compensated ? (2) Who should compensate and (3) What should the amount of compensation ? These questions ale easy of answer. The evidence shows that the petitioner the father of Bhura is a man of about 70 years an emaciated Adivasi. (2) Who should compensate and (3) What should the amount of compensation ? These questions ale easy of answer. The evidence shows that the petitioner the father of Bhura is a man of about 70 years an emaciated Adivasi. There is also evidence to show that Bhuras mother is alive and she is stated to be 60 years old Bhura has left behind a wife (we purposefully do not use the expression widow) who is about 19 years of age There is evidence to show that Bhura was studying in Second Year B A In all reasonable probability he would have graduated in due course of time and coming from a backward community and with the reservation policies in the Government jobs his chances of getting a government employment at the grass root level of a graduate clerk starting with a salary of more than Rs. 2000. 00 per month would almost be indefeasible These facts have got to be borne in mind while fixing the quantum of compensation and/or exemplary costs and/or damages (as the expressions have been used in some of the judgments referred to by us) The father the mother and the wife of Bhura all of whom must have suffered lot of agony and mental oppression are therefore required to be compensated Keeping the aforesaid factors in mind and perusing the awards in such matters made by the Supreme Court in the judgments referred to by us we think a total sum of Rs. 2. 00 lakhs shall be an adequate award in favour of the father the mother and the wife of Bhura. The State of Gujarat is certainly liable to pay this compensation on the authorities in the Judgments referred to by us hereinabove Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case we therefore direct that the State of Gujarat shall pay a compensation of Rs. 2. 00 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs) to the father the mother and the wife of Bhura. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned as follows28a Out of Rs. 2. 00 lakhs a sum of Rs. 1. 00 lakh (Rupees one lakh) shall be paid to and for the benefit of the wife of Bhura and Rs. 2. 00 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs) to the father the mother and the wife of Bhura. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned as follows28a Out of Rs. 2. 00 lakhs a sum of Rs. 1. 00 lakh (Rupees one lakh) shall be paid to and for the benefit of the wife of Bhura and Rs. 50 0 (Rupees fifty thousand) to each of the parents of Bhura The State of Cowgirl is directed to deposit this amount with the Collector of Panchmahals at Godhra within six weeks from now and the Collector of Panchmahals at Godhra shall get the respective amounts awarded to the wife and the parents of Bhura as aforesaid invested in a Scheduled bank which might be nearest to the place of residence of the wife and parents of Bhura In case of the amount of Rs. 1. 00 lakh payable to the wife of Bhura the initial investment shall be for a period of five years while in the case of the amounts payable each of the parents the initial investment shall be for a period of three years. 1. 00 lakh payable to the wife of Bhura the initial investment shall be for a period of five years while in the case of the amounts payable each of the parents the initial investment shall be for a period of three years. The wife and parents of Bhura shall not be permitted to withdraw the corpus for the initial period of deposit nor shall they be permitted to raise a loan against the corpus for the initial period of respective deposits However they shall be entitled to draw the periodical interest as payable by the bank on due identification At the end of the initial periods of the deposits as aforesaid the corpus together with the accrued interest shall be paid to them ( 29 ) WE would make it clear that respondents No. 3 and 4 are facing prosecutions F. I. R. has been lodged against them and the matter is under investigation A private complaint has been lodged against them and that is also pending investigation Whatever we have said hereinabove in this judgment is to be understood to have been said by us only for the purpose of deciding this application and shall not in any manner come in the way of the defence of respondents No. 3 and 4 in those prosecutions We would also clarify that the State of Gujarat shall be free to take such action as law permits it against respondents No. 3 and 4 in the matter of reimbursement of the amount of compensation which we have awarded in favour of the wife and the parents of Bhura against the State of Gujarat ( 30 ) COPY of this judgment should be sent by the Registry to the Collector Panchmahals at Godhra Collector Panchmahals at Godhra should see to it that the directions given by the Court Para 28 of this judgment are strictly complied with and he shall report compliance to this Court within eight weeks from now i. e. within eight weeks from 3/09/1993. ( 31 ) AT this juncture Mr. Y. F. Mehta learned Additional Public Prosecutor requests for the stay of the order. The request is rejected. The petition is allowed accordingly Rule is made absolute order accordingly. .