V. Dutta Gyani, C. J. (Acting) - By this petition presented on 26.4.96 the petitioner Mrs Notle wife of Bu-o Angami complained of illegal and wrongful detention of her husband Bu-o Angami by the Security Force (29th Bn Assam Rifles) and prayed for a writ of Habeas Corpus. The abovenamed detenu, the petitioner's husband, was arrested on 18.4.96 around 11.30 PM and taken away from his house situated in ChotoBasti of Kohimatown in a blind folded manner without assigning reason or disclosing his ground of arrest. The house was laso searched, but nothing incriminating was found. On 19th morning the matter was reported to the Deputy Commissioner. Kohima as also to the Officer ln-charge Police Station Kohima praying for tracing out the detenu, but till filing of the writ petition he was not traced. He was neither produced before any Magistrate nor was handed over to nearest police station as contemplated under section 5 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958. Thereafter the present petition was filed on 26.4.96 and on the same day a learned Single Judge of this Court while issuing Rule made the following direction : “In the interim, therefore, I direct the 5th respondent to make over the said Shri Bu-o Angami to the Officer In-charge of the nearest police station immediately on receipt of this order.” 2. Since the above order dated 26.4.96 was not complied 'with a contempt petition was moved on 30.4.96 alleging wilful defiance of the Court's order dated 26.4.96 by the respondent Commanding Officer 29th Bn Assam Rifles Mr. VK Malhotra. A miscellaneous application being Misc Case No. 21 (K)/96 was also filed on 6.5.96 bringing to light how the detemu was tortured to death. That too in defiance of the Court's order dated 26.4.96. 3. By order dated 28.10.97 this petition was sent to the main seat at Guwahati for being listed for final hearing on 17.11.97. The respondents entered appearance. It may be noted that there are three affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Commandant 29 Bn AR. As per the affidavit filed on 23.5.96 it is an admitted position that Bu-o Angami was picked up in the small hours of 19th April, 1996 on specific information as claimed by the respondent No. 5. The respondents entered appearance. It may be noted that there are three affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Commandant 29 Bn AR. As per the affidavit filed on 23.5.96 it is an admitted position that Bu-o Angami was picked up in the small hours of 19th April, 1996 on specific information as claimed by the respondent No. 5. The reason for not handing him over to the nearest police station as assigned by and contained in the affidavit dated 23.5.96 is as follows : “the deponent respectfully beg to state that the subject on questioning had revealed his identity as No.1006 SS 2/Lt Bu-o Angami. During the course of questioning he divulged many facts related to NSCN (K). Bu-o had led security forces to Village Chiechema, Berhema and Tophema. He had been taken security forces to certain hideouts of NSCN (K) cadre in Dimapur. Therefore, he could not be handed over to police before completion of operations led by him” 4. The second affidavit filed in the writ petition on 14.5.96 by the same deponent Col VK Malhotra also admits the fact that B u-o Angami was apprehended from his residence around 030 Hrs on 19.4.96 by the security force. The only difference is about the timing. According to the writ petitioner it was around 11.30 PM whereas the respondents say that it was around 12.30 in the night. This difference of timing is hardly of any consequence. It is an admitted position that Bu-o Angami was in the custody of the security force from the moment he was apprehended from his house and till his dead body along with the FIR was handed over to police by the security force. The deponent VK Malhotra in his affidavit dated 14.5.96 has stated that one .38 Revolver made in USA with one empty case and one live round on 9 mm ammunition was recovered from him with two letters as detailed in paragraph 2 of the affidavit dated 14.5.96. It is reproduced hereunder: “He was apprehended from his residence at about 0030hrs on 19 April 96 by Security Forces based on specific information. One pt 38 revolver, made in USA regd No. PH 1725 with one empty case of point 38 and one live round of 9 mm ammunition was recovered from him. On subsequent search of the house, two letters, one written by Mr. One pt 38 revolver, made in USA regd No. PH 1725 with one empty case of point 38 and one live round of 9 mm ammunition was recovered from him. On subsequent search of the house, two letters, one written by Mr. Zeloulie, Chairman Angami Region/GPRN and another singed by Bu-o Angami himself as Colonel, Central Command, Naga Army were also recovered (Photo copies attached as Annexure A and B). Bu-o had been very co-operative and led Security Forces for operations to other hideouts of NSCN (K) cadres. On 23 April he helped in apprehension of SS Pvt. Nelhuto and SS Pvt Atou Chakasang of NSCN (K). From 24 April to 27 April, Bu-o led the Security Force to Vill Chiechema, Tophema and Nerhema. He even led Security Force to Dimapur for operations. On 27 April he led Security Force to Vill Jotsoma for operations. He had shown many hide outs of NSCN (KJ cadre in and around Kohima as well as Dimapur. All these operations led by Bu-o delayed his handing over to police earlier. On 28 April 96 when police had come to take over Bu-o and two other viz. SS Pvt Valhuto and SS Pvt Atou Chakasang, Bu-o was left behind as he had refused to sign documents. Within 20 minutes after departure of police Bu-o had died. His dead body along with FIR was handed over to police as PS (N) by Security Forces.” 5. It is claimed by the deponent that the Superintendent of Police, Kohima was informed of the arrest of the detenu on 19th, but the laconic manner in which this information is claimed to have been given is self-explanatory. The deponent in paragraph 4 of his affidavit states “as per best of knowledge of the deponent”. This kind of knowledge has no value in the eye of law, the claim made in-paragraph 4 of the affidavit are reproduced below : “4... the deponent respectfully beg to state that any apprehension of undergrounds is always intimated to SP Kohima either on telephone or during Joint Control Centre (JCC) meeting which is held everyday and attended by SP Kohima. As such SP Kohima and others attending meeting were informed on 19 April 96. the deponent respectfully beg to state that any apprehension of undergrounds is always intimated to SP Kohima either on telephone or during Joint Control Centre (JCC) meeting which is held everyday and attended by SP Kohima. As such SP Kohima and others attending meeting were informed on 19 April 96. As per best of knowledge of the deponent, no telephone call of SP Kohima was received on 22 April as he was already very much aware of the fact that Bu-o had been in custody of Security Forces since 19 April 96.” 6. It is the respondents' case that the detenu co-operated with the security forces and led the force in the operation in and around Kohima and Dimapur which resulted in the apprehension of two other extremists Velhuto and Atou Chakasang. Delay in handing over the detenu in time is sought to be explained by the co-operation extended by the detenu in the operations. It is their pleaded case that “On 28 April 96 at about 1930 hrs when he was being handed over to police, he refused to sign the seizure memo, due to which an instruction from SP Kohima, Mr. Vizeo Angami, ASI PS (N) declined to take him over, a fact which is known to both SP Kohima as well as ASI, Mr. Vizeo Angami who spent about 40 minutes explaining to Bu-o in his own language about the procedures. On his refusal, he reported the matter to SP Kohima on telephone and then on his instructions left him behind but took away SS Pvt Velhuto and SS Pvt Atou Chakasang with him. Later that evening just 20 minutes after departure of ASI, Bu-o died. Hence, the order of Hon'ble High Court could not be complied with.” The respondents have highlighted the co-operation extended by the detenu in taking the security forces to certain hideout of NSCN cadres in Dimapur, flouting statutory law and guidelines issued by the Additional Director General, Discipline and Vigilance vide notification dated 25.11.92. A curious plea has been taken by the respondent saying that these guidelines pertains to the State of Assam only, as if permitting its violation outside the State of Assam. Denying the allegations of torture the respondents seek support from the post mortem examination report which accordingly confirms that there was no fracture on the body of the detenu. A curious plea has been taken by the respondent saying that these guidelines pertains to the State of Assam only, as if permitting its violation outside the State of Assam. Denying the allegations of torture the respondents seek support from the post mortem examination report which accordingly confirms that there was no fracture on the body of the detenu. The injury marks on the wrists which sought to be explained by saying that they were caused by cord tied to his hands which was considered essential for security reason. The circumstance in which the detenu met with his death are explained in the following manner: “Police spend about 40 minutes with Bu-o explaining him the procedure but when he refused to sign the seizure memo, they left. After departure of ASI, when Bu-o was being taken towards jeep to drop him back to his room, some water sort substance was noticed coming out of his mouth. He was immediately taken to hospital, where Medical Officer on duty after examining and rendering medical aid, declared him dead at about 2030 hrs on 28 April 96, probable cause of death dyeing Cardiac Arrest. Immediately, SP Kohima and OC PS (N) were informed on telephone and requested to come over to hospital. At about 2100 hours OC PS (N) came and DC along with SP, Kohima arrived around 2125 hours. On advice by SP Kohima, the dead body of Bu-o was handed over to police at PS (N) at 0110 hours at night, by security forces.” What is claimed by the deponent is that the Assam Rifles is a law abiding force. The last in the series of counter affidavit filed by the respondent is dated 7.6.96 which was filed in the contempt petition. Admittedly, the Court's order passed in Civil Rule (HC) No. 62 (K)/96 was delivered on 26.4.96, but the deponent respondent VK Malhotra in his affidavit states “it was seen by the respondent only on 27.4.97”. This is the explanation offered for non-compliance of the Court's order. The same story of co-operation said to have been extended by the detenu has been repeated in this affidavit as well. This is the explanation offered for non-compliance of the Court's order. The same story of co-operation said to have been extended by the detenu has been repeated in this affidavit as well. As for delay in not complying with the order the deponent has further stated that: “On 23rd April 96, he even helped in apprehension of SS Pvt Velhuto and SS Pvt Atou Chakasang of NSCN (K) on 25 April 96, Bu-o led Security Forces to Dimapur and area around. On 27th April 96 he led Security Forces towards village Jotsoma in search of Mr. Zeloulie, Chairman Angami Region/CPRN and other accomplices. All these operations led by SS2/ It Bu-o Angami delayed his handing over to police authorities as ordered by Hon'ble Court. On 28th April 96, on return from operations, documents in respect of SS 2/ Lt Bu-o Angami for handing over to Police Station (North) were prepared along with papers in respect of SS Pvt Veihuto and SS Pvt Atou Chakasang. However, in the evening at about 1930 hours on 28th 'April 96 when Mr. Vizeo Angami, AST PS (North) arrived. Bu-o Angami refused to sign the seizure memo pertaining to revolver recovered from him. In spite of the fact that AST himself explained the requirement of signing the papers, in his own languages (Angami) SS 2/Lt Bu-o Angami refused to sign. AS1 Mr. Vizeo then spoke to SP, Kohima on telephone and on his directions declined to take over without signature on seizure memo. ASI PS (North) left at about 2010 hrs on 28th April 96 with two other undergrounds, namely SS Pvt Velhuto and SS Pvt Atou Chakasang. After departure of ASI, when Bu-o Angami was taken to jeep to drop him back to his room, some water sort substance was noticed coming oui of his mouth. He was immediately taken to the hospital where Medical Officer on duty after examining and rendering medical aid declared him dead at about 2030 hours on 29th April 96, with probable cause of death being Cardiac Arrest (photo copies of death certificate and case sheet attached as Annexure C and D). On occurrence of the incident, immediately, SP Kohima and OC PS (North) were informed on telephone, OC PS (North) came at about 2100 hours followed by DC Kohima and SP Kohima who arrived around 2125 hours. On occurrence of the incident, immediately, SP Kohima and OC PS (North) were informed on telephone, OC PS (North) came at about 2100 hours followed by DC Kohima and SP Kohima who arrived around 2125 hours. On advice of SP Kohima the dead body was handed over to police at PS (North) with FIR at about 0110 hours at night by security forces (photo copy of FIR attached as Annexure E). It can be seen from the above that at no stage the contention of the security forces were of not handing over Bu-o Angami Police authorities. In fact, immediately on arrival from operations on 28th April 96, police authorities were requested to take over all the three undergrounds. This also proves beyond doubt that intentions were sincere in nature and there was no foul play in this regard. Also at no stage orders of the Hon'ble Court had been defied. It is reiterated that the dead body of SS 2/Lt Bu-o Angami was handed over at Police Station (North) and not collected by police as stated in the petition. 6. That with regard to the statements as contained in para 5 of the writ petition, the deponent respectfully beg to state that there was no doubt about the directions of the Hon'ble Court passed vide CR No.(HC) 62 (K) of 1996 signed on 26th April 96. However, due to various operations led by SS 2/Lt Bu-o Angami in Kohima and villages around and outside Kohima to Dimapur and adjoining areas, he could not be handed over to the police before completion of said opeartions, as per directions of the Hon'ble Court.” 9. It is significant to note that in face of what has been stated by the deponent for non-compliance of Court's order dated 26.4.96, the crowning statement that follows is: “This also proves beyond doubt that intentions were sincere in nature and there was no foul play in this regard. Also at no stage orders of the Hon'ble Court had beeen defied.” 10. In the same affidavit, the allegation of torture is denied in the following words : “It is also incorrect to say that Bu-o Angami was tortured to death ...” 11. Return to the Habeas Corpus is the production of the detenu, but what has produced in this case is not the detenu, but the dead body. In the same affidavit, the allegation of torture is denied in the following words : “It is also incorrect to say that Bu-o Angami was tortured to death ...” 11. Return to the Habeas Corpus is the production of the detenu, but what has produced in this case is not the detenu, but the dead body. The undisputed facts emerging from the affidavit sworn by the respondent No.5 established beyond any doubt that the detenu, Bu-o Angami was picked up on 19.4.96 by member of the security forces from his house and thereafter what was handed over to police was his dead body on 29.4.96. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assisted by Mr. T. Kozo highlighted and brought it to sharp focus. The writ was issued by this Court on 26.4.96 directing the respondent No. 5 to make over Bu-o Angami to Officer In-charge of the nearest police station immediately on receiving the order. Admittedly, this order dated 26.4.96 was received on 26th inself, but the respondent No.5 has added that it was seen by him only on 27th of April (see affidavit dated 7.6.96 filed by deponent, VK Malhotra in contempt proceeding). There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the order was not carried out on 26th itself. It is so much a matter of contempt as it is a matter of human life being lost which would have been and could have been saved if the Court's order was carried out. But that was not to be. It is, this aspect of the matter which Mr. Goswami was brought into sharp focus. The values of freedom and equality, the dignity of human individual and the respect of fundamental human rights are set at naught by disobedience of Court's order. 12. While handing over the dead body, an FIR, Annexure A filed along with the affidavit of deponent VK Malhotra was also lodged. Paragraphs 5 and 6 thereof are extracted below : “5. The subject had been very co-operative and led SF for operation even till last evening. Today in the afternoon he was to be handed over and as such documents were prepared. Later in the evening OC PS (N) was requested to come over to the unit and take the subject along with other two accomplices as mentioned above. The subject had been very co-operative and led SF for operation even till last evening. Today in the afternoon he was to be handed over and as such documents were prepared. Later in the evening OC PS (N) was requested to come over to the unit and take the subject along with other two accomplices as mentioned above. However, the OC PS (N) expressed his inability as he had no vehicle at that time. Therefore, we sent our vehicle to fetch him. All three were then brought to the office. SS 2/Lt Bu-o on arrival asked for water and drunk two glasses of water. On arrival of ASI, OC PS (N) SS Pvt. Volhuto and SS Pvt. Akhayi alias Atou Chakasang were handed over after necessary documentaion at 1930 hours. However, in presence of ASI, SS 2/Lt Bauou Angami refused to sign the documents pertaining to seizure memo of revolver recovered from him perhaps knowing the consequence of the offence committed. In fact he refused to sign any paper. ASI, OC PS (N) even explained to him in Angami language, but he did not sign. OC PS (N) was then requested to contact SP, Kohima to take his advice. After talking to SP Kohima, ASI confirmed that unless he signed the documents he would be taken over by police and even left thumb impression won't do any good. As such OC PS (N) left SS 2/Lt Bauou behind and went off with other two handed over by SF. It was about 2010 hours on 28th April 96 when ASI left. 6. Thereafter, vehicle was asked for to take SS 2/Lt Bauou back to his room. While taking him towards jeep, some water was noticed coming out of his mouth. He was then taken to unit hospital where medical officer on duty after examining and rendering him medical aid declared him dead at about 2030 hours on 2 April 96. Immediately, SP, Kohima and OC PS (N) were informed on telephone and requested to come over to unit hospital. At about 2100 OC PS (N) arrived and OC alongwith SP Kohima arrived at unit hospital around 2125 hours. On advice of SP, Kohima, the body of deceased is hereby handed over alongwith this report for necessary action.” 13. Immediately, SP, Kohima and OC PS (N) were informed on telephone and requested to come over to unit hospital. At about 2100 OC PS (N) arrived and OC alongwith SP Kohima arrived at unit hospital around 2125 hours. On advice of SP, Kohima, the body of deceased is hereby handed over alongwith this report for necessary action.” 13. The respondents have made a furtile attempt at painting a very common picture as is nothing was done to detenu Bu-o Angami and he died a natural death. The plea as sought to be raised by the respondents is totally belied by the post mortem examination report, Annexure D as placed on record. The findings recorded by the Medical Superintendent narrated a tell-tale story which proved that the detenu was subjected to torture : “Multiple small wounds scattered all over the body in numerous, unaccountable character of the wounds are that it were not deep but amount to infliction the body. Bruise are absent all out the body,-and more if with ecchymosed with swelling amounting to blunt weapon used in beating repeating on the same site spently in the arms elbow and on the legs besides being wound on the body. Ligature marks are most prominently marked on both hands and also above the ankle of the joint say about 3” above both the elbows ie on both the hands. As described in various column specified, the blunt weapon was mostly used in inflicting the victim, causing tremendous mental and physical torture which is humanly impossible to bear. It is also found that most of the wounds found over the various parts of the body of the victim are on the process of drying up, thus the infliction caused on the victim today were mostly 4 to 5 days aid. Rigor mortis was present at the time of post mortem on all over the body except neck. Neck was to free and on dissection it was found that there was dislocation of crucial vertebra between 1st and 2nd leading to compression of crucial spinal cord. The rest of the system remain no suggestive to the cause of death. The consensus opinion drawn leading to the cause of death was -Dislocation of cervical vertebrae between 1st and 2nd causing compression of the cervical spinal cord leading to the cardiorespiratory failure.” 14. The rest of the system remain no suggestive to the cause of death. The consensus opinion drawn leading to the cause of death was -Dislocation of cervical vertebrae between 1st and 2nd causing compression of the cervical spinal cord leading to the cardiorespiratory failure.” 14. The multiple small bruises scattered all over the body with echymosis and the categorical opinion that blunt weapon was used in beating and repeatedly beating on the same site on the arms, elbow, the chin, the legs. Multiple echymosis was present all over the abdomen itself indicative of the torture. It is significant to note that while regormortis was present all over the body, the neck was too free and on dissection it was found that there was dislocation of cerivcal vertebra between the 1st and 2nd leading to compression of cervical spinal cord. Viewed in its totality, the post mortem report Annexure D fully establish the fact that the detenu was subjected to brutal physical torture while in custody. 15. So far as torture and custodial death is concerned we can do no better than refer to one of the most leading recent judgment of the Apex Court, delivered by Hon'ble Justice Dr.AS Anand in DK Basu vs. State of West Bengal, as reported in AIR 1997 SC 610 , where it has been observed : “Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by rule of law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected. We cannot wish away the problem. Any form of torture of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occures during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. If the functionaries of the Govt becomes law breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself thereby leading to anarchism. No civilised nation can permit that to happen. Does a citizen sheed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a police man arrest him? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest? These questions touch the spinal cord of human rights' jurisprudence. The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic 'No'. No civilised nation can permit that to happen. Does a citizen sheed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a police man arrest him? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest? These questions touch the spinal cord of human rights' jurisprudence. The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic 'No'. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, under trials, detenus and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law. The importance of affirmed rights of every human being need no emphasis and, therefore, to detect the breaches thereof become a sacred duty of the Court as the custodian and protector of the fundamental and the basic human rights of the citizens. Custodial violence, including torture and death in the lock-ups, strikes a blow at the rule of law, which demand that the powers of the executive should not only be derived from law but also that the same should be limited by law. Custodial violence is a matter of concern. It is aggravated by the fact that it is committed by persons who are supposed to be the protectors of the citizens. It is committed under the shield of uniform and authority in the four walls of a police station or lock-up, the victim being totally helpless. The protection of an individual from torture and abuse by the police and other law-enforcing officers is a matter of deep concern in a free society. These petitions raise important issues concerning police powers, including whether monetary compensation should be awarded for established infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The issues are fundamental. 10. 'Torture' has not been defined in the Constitution or in other penal laws. 'Torture' of a human being is essentially an instrument to impose the will of the 'strong' over the 'weak' by suffering. The word 'torture' today has become synonymous with the darker side of the human civilisation. “Torture' is a wound in the soul so painful That some times you can almost touch it, but it is also so intangible that there is no way to heal it. The word 'torture' today has become synonymous with the darker side of the human civilisation. “Torture' is a wound in the soul so painful That some times you can almost touch it, but it is also so intangible that there is no way to heal it. Torture is anguish squeezing in your chest, cold as ice and heavy as a stone, paralyzing as sleep and dark as the abyss. Torture is despair and fear and rage and hate. It is a desire to kill and destroy including yourself.” - Adriana P. Bartow. No violation of any one of the human rights has been the subject of so many conventions and declarations as 'torture' all aiming at total banning of it in all forms, but in spite of the commitments made to eliminate torture, the fact remains that torture is more widespread now then ever before. 'Custodial torture' is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality. It is a calculated assault on human dignity and whenever human dignity is wounded, civilisation takes a step backward flag of humanity must on each occasion fly half-mast. In all custodial crimes what is of real concern is not only infliction of body pain but the mental agony which a person undergoes within the four walls of police station or lock-up. Whether it h physical assault or rape in police custody, the extent of trauma, a person experience is beyond the purview of law.” 16. Fatal injuries resulting from blunt impact force follow a certain pattern. It is a matter of common knowledge that homicidial injuries are usually inflicted with some clubbing weapon. What is significant to be noted is while the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition have tried to explain the ligature marks on the wrist joint, there is not a whisper about the multiple bruises found all over the body and the fracture of the vertebral column. The death certificate, Annexure C as filed by the respondents read as follows : “This is to certify that Mr. Bauou Angami, 32 years S/olateMazadou Angami, r/o Chhota Basti, Kohima (Nagaland), died at Unit Hospital at 8.30 PM on 28.04.96 due to cardio-respiratory failure.” 17. The respondents have also filed the examination report dated 28.4.96 submitted by the duty Medical Officer who examined Bu-o Angami at the Unit Hospital. Bauou Angami, 32 years S/olateMazadou Angami, r/o Chhota Basti, Kohima (Nagaland), died at Unit Hospital at 8.30 PM on 28.04.96 due to cardio-respiratory failure.” 17. The respondents have also filed the examination report dated 28.4.96 submitted by the duty Medical Officer who examined Bu-o Angami at the Unit Hospital. This report is also reproduced below : “Name : Mr. Bauou Angami, Age-32 years. This 32 years old prisoned was brought to Unit Hospital at 8.15 PM on 28.04.96 C/o loss of consciousness. on examination : Pube absent Heart sounds - absent Pupils - dilated and fixed, not reading to light Reflex - absent Injury marks : Old injury marks around the left & right wrist (due to tying of ropes), superficial scratch marks at neck, lower chest, injury marks around the elbows, leg, right hand and in the back. Cardiac message given for 10 minutes., but there is no response. Pt. is declared dead at 8.30 PM. The cause of death is cardio-respiratory failure.” 18. What has been described as superfically scratch mark in this report were the multiple bruises, arteris around left elbow, leg, right hand and back, speak volume for themselves. The fact that cardiac message was given is self indicative. The cause of death is stated to be cardio respiratory failure. The question is, what led to this cardio-respiratory failure ? The reason is not far to seek. Can one ignore the multiple injuries found on the body ? The dislocation of the vertebrae and loose neck, the multiple wounds and bruishes found all over the body and fractured vertebral column were enough to alert any pathologist that death was due to the application and impact of manual force. The post-mortem examination report clearly and categorically states that the dislocation of cervical vertebrae between first and second caused compression of the cervical spinal cord leading to the cardio-respiratory failure. It is thus clear that cardio-respiratory failure was the result of compression but if the Medical Officer of the Unit simply does not want to see to it, who can help it. 19. The rule of law is of universal validity in its application and embraces principles of justice which are considered minimal to the assurance of human right and the life and dignity of man. Respect for human dignity and fundamental rights is obligatory. 19. The rule of law is of universal validity in its application and embraces principles of justice which are considered minimal to the assurance of human right and the life and dignity of man. Respect for human dignity and fundamental rights is obligatory. The principle of protection for life and liberty has received recognition in several international declarations and conventions, but what good it is when the gap between principles and practice widens to such an extent that incidents such as the one at hand become frequent. Affirming the principle is one thing and enforcing and implementing the same is something else. 20. Article 6 (1) of the International Bill of Human Rights - declares every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the same vein declares - “Everyone has right to life, liberty and security of person”. The dignity of man is inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all State authority”. So runs Article 1 of the Basic Law of the German Federal Republic. 21. Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power adopted by United Nations General Assembly on 29th November, 1985 provides that victims should be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity. They are entitled to access to the mechanism of justice and prompt redress as provided for by national legislation for the harm that they have suffered. Look at the post mortem examination report and with what compassion Bu-o Angami was treated would be clear. Fracture of spinal column, the loose neck, is self revealing of the respect for his dignity.” Who can hold his neck erect in face of these findings. Recourse to mechanism of justice was no doubt taken, but to what avail ? The writ issued by the Court on 26.4.96 was flouted with impunity. What else could the petitioner do than approaching this Court praying for writ of Habeas Corpus which was granted as well. Yet what was returned was not the prisoner but his dead body. 22. All constitutional provisions, declarations and conventions seem dull and flat when any return to a writ of Habeas Corpus, a dead body is handed over. What else could the petitioner do than approaching this Court praying for writ of Habeas Corpus which was granted as well. Yet what was returned was not the prisoner but his dead body. 22. All constitutional provisions, declarations and conventions seem dull and flat when any return to a writ of Habeas Corpus, a dead body is handed over. Life in the 5th and 14th Amendments of US Constitution which correspond to Article 21 of the Constitution of India means not merely the right to the continuance of a person's animal existence but a right to the possession of each of his organs, his arms and legs as explained by the Supreme Court in Kharak Singh vs. State of UP, AIR 1963 SC 1295 . In Bhauvan Mohon Patnaik vs State of AP, AIR 1974 SC 2092 , the Supreme Court declared that through the Government possesses the constitutional right to enforce laws, it cannot, by taking law into its own hands, resort to oppressive measures to curb the political beliefs of its opponents. The colour of crime varies according to constitutional facts, corporate crime, white collared crimes, police harassment, extremists' crimes, terrorists crimes and the crimes committed in colour of office. 23. It is a case of established infringement of fundamental right to life. The tall denial made by the respondents in his affidavit-in-opposition that the detenu was not subjected to any torture is too tall to be accepted in face of the finding recorded in the post mortem examination report. 24. No amount of compensation can be substitute for human life lost. The Supreme Court taking note of growing custodial deaths and violence has expressed its deep concern about this disturbing factor in DK Basu (supra). 25. The question is what should be the compensation. We are go by the materials available on record and some of the decided cases by the Supreme Court. 26. The Supreme Court taking note of growing custodial deaths and violence has expressed its deep concern about this disturbing factor in DK Basu (supra). 25. The question is what should be the compensation. We are go by the materials available on record and some of the decided cases by the Supreme Court. 26. Having examined its earlier judgment as reported in Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP, (1994) 4 SCC 260 ; Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 ; State of MP vs. Shyamsunder Trivedi, (1995) 4 SCC 262 ; Rudul Shah vs. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141 ; Sebastian-M. Hongray vs. Union of India, (1984) 1 SCC 339 ; Bhim Singh vs. State of J&K, 1984 Supp SCC 504; Saheli, A Women's Resources Centre vs. Commissioner of Police, (1990) 1 SCC 422 ; Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain vs. State of UP, AIR 1965 SC 1039 ; the Supreme Court noted that “indeed there is no express provision in the- Constitution of India for grant of compensation for violation of a fundamental right to life, nonetheless, this Court has judicially evolved a right to compensation in cases of established unconstitutional deprivation of personal liberty or life” and found a way out for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty as follows: “The claim in public law for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty, the protection of which is guaranteed under the Constitution, is a claim based on strict liability and is in addition to the claim available in private law for damages for tortous acts of the public servants. Public law proceedings serve a different purpose that the private law proceedings. Award of compensation for established infringement of the indefeasible rights guaranted under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizens they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and preserved. Award of compensation for established infringement of the indefeasible rights guaranted under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizens they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and preserved. Grant of compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the established violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21, is an exercise of the Courts under the public law jurisdiction for penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens.” 27. The petitioner has claimed Rs.10 lakhs as compensation for illegal detention of her husband and torturing him to death. Seeking guidance from the reported case in Nilabati Behera (supra) where the Supreme Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- with costs of Rs.10,000/- in Bihar Timung vs. Union of India & others, as reported in (1993) 2 GLR 347 (1993 (2) GLJ ), and Smti Geeta Sangma vs. State of Nagaland & others, 1993 (1) GLJ 340, this Court awarded Rs. two lakhs and Rs. one lakh fifty thousand respectively as palliative .There is always certain amount of guess work involved in quantifying the amount of compensation. To our mind awarding Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation with cost of Rs.l5,000/-inclusive of counsel fee would substantially meet the ends of justice. Accordingly Rs.2,50,000/- with cost of Rs.15,000/- is awarded payable by the respondents. 28. The matter does not rest here. Admittedly, the matter was reported to the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima and Officer In-charge of Kohima Police Station, but no action seems to have been taken by the State authorities, particularly the police. The respondent No.3 is directed to register a case on the basis of the report lodged and we see no reason as to why it had not been registered so far. The respondent No.3 is directed to register a case on the basis of the report lodged and we see no reason as to why it had not been registered so far. It clearly discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & others vs Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 , the police has no option, but to register a case and to proceed with the investigation if the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence which it undoubtedly does in the instant case. The District Magistrate, Kohima is directed to see it, and the OC is directed to proceed with the investigation after registering a case in accordance with law. 29. The only point that still remains to be considered is that of contempt. 30. The petitioner has in clear words averred in para 2 and 3 of her contempt petition that after obtaining certified copy of the order dated 26.4.96, she personally handed over the same to Mr. K. Meruno, CGSC, the same day at Dimapur and it was delivered to the contemner on the same day, i.e. 26.4.96 through special messenger, yet instead of handing over the detenu to the police he was tortured to death. It is not as if the contemner was not aware of the order, even if he was, it would afford no justification for the inhuman torture meted out to the detenu. But we are presently concerned with contempt. The alleged contemner in his affidavit in opposition has admitted the position in the following words : “The deponent respectfully beg to state that the said order of the Hon'ble Court was though delivered on 26th April, 96, it was seen by the respondent only on 27th April,96.” 31. Bu-o Angami was picked up from his residence in the midnight intervening 18th and 19th of April, 1996. He ought to have been handed over to police or produced before Magistrate, in any case on 19th morning. Instead of doing so, he was detained in custody, for a week, which necessitated filing a petition for Habeas Corpus. The Court directed the detenu to be handed over to police or produced before a Magistrate. This direction was made on 26th, served on 26th, yet not complied with. Instead of doing so, he was detained in custody, for a week, which necessitated filing a petition for Habeas Corpus. The Court directed the detenu to be handed over to police or produced before a Magistrate. This direction was made on 26th, served on 26th, yet not complied with. He was already in custody for a week but the contemnerhas in his affidavit suggested that he became co-operative with the authorities, after being taken into custody as if it was all voluntary. To quote his own words : “Thereafter, he became very co-operative and led Security Forces for operations to other hideouts of NSCN (K) cadre in Kohima, Dimapur and villages Nerhema, Tophema and Chiechema.” 32. Explaining the delay in non-production the deponent has stated : “On the 23rd April 96, he even helped in apprehension of SS Pvt Velhuto and SS Pvt Atou Chakasang of NSCN (K) on 25the April 96, Bu-o led Security Forces to Dimapur and area around. On 27th April 96 he led Security Forces towards village Jotsoma in search of Mr. Zeloulie, Chairman Angami Region/ GPRN and other accomplices. All these opeartions led by SS 2/Lt Bu-o Angami delayed his handing over to police authorities as ordered by Hon'ble Court. On 28th April 96, on return from operations, documents in respect of SS 2/Lt Bu-o Angami for handing over to Police Station (North) were prepared along with papers in respect of SS Pvt Velhuto and SS Pvt Atou Chakasang. However, in the evening at about 19.30 hours on 28th April 96 when Mr. Vizeo Angami, ASI PS (North) 'arrived Bu-o Angami refused to sign the seizure memo pertaining to revolver recovered from him. In spite of the fact that ASI himself explained the requirement of signing the papers, in his own language (Angami) SS 2/Lt Bu-o Angami refused to sign. ASI, Mr. Vizeo then spoke to SP, Kohima on telephone and on his directions declined to take over without signatute on seizure memo. . ASI PS (North) left at about 20.10 hours on 28th April 96 .with two other undergrounds, namely SS Pvt Velhuto and SS Pvt Atou Chakasang. After departure of ASI, when Bu-o Angami was taken to jeep to drop him back to his room, some water sort substance was noticed coming out of his mouth. . ASI PS (North) left at about 20.10 hours on 28th April 96 .with two other undergrounds, namely SS Pvt Velhuto and SS Pvt Atou Chakasang. After departure of ASI, when Bu-o Angami was taken to jeep to drop him back to his room, some water sort substance was noticed coming out of his mouth. He was immediately taken to the hospital where Medical Officer on duty after examining and rendering medical aid declared his dead at about 20.30 hours on 28th April 96, with probable cause of death being Cardiac Arrest (photo copies of death certificate and case sheet attached as Annexure C and D).” 33. Again in paragraph 6 it is stated : 'The deponent respectfully beg to state that there was no doubt about the directions of the Hon'ble Court passed vide CR No. (HC) 62 (K) of 1996 signed on 26th April 96. However, due to various opeartions led by SS 2/Lt Bu-o Angami in Kohima and villages around and outside Kohima to Dimapur and adjoining areas, he could not be handed over to the police before completion of said operations, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Court. It is also incorrect to say that Bu-o Angami was tortured to death. Two photographs taken immediately after the death and produced herewith for perusal of the Hon'ble Court (Photos attached as Annexure F and G). It is also stated that dead body was open to all whosoever visited the hospital including party OC, PS (North), DC Kohima and SP, Kohima. There was no malafide intention to hide the facts, at any stage. The fact remains that Mr. Bu-o Angami was in the company of ASI PS (North) for about 40 minutes till the- later at about 20.10 hours. And within 20 minutes of his departure, Bu-o Angami dies due to caridac failure as per the examinations and report of duty Medical Officer at the hospital.” 34. This is no explanation. On the other hand, it clearly shows that despite the Court's order having been served on him 26th itself, the contemner persisted in his operation in total disregard of the order. It is nothing but wilful disobedience of the order. 35. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel invited our attention to the apology tendered by the contemner. This is no explanation. On the other hand, it clearly shows that despite the Court's order having been served on him 26th itself, the contemner persisted in his operation in total disregard of the order. It is nothing but wilful disobedience of the order. 35. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel invited our attention to the apology tendered by the contemner. This apology as contained in paragraph 9 of the affidavit is reproduced below : “The deponent respectfully begs to state that the delay in handing over of SS 2/Lt Bu-o Angami under the above circumstances has been considered to the contempt of this Hon'ble Court's order, the contemner tenders his humble apologies and prays that he may be pardoned. The delay has taken place due to unavoidable circumstances wherein Mr. Bu-o Angami himself had been leading the Security Forces for operations against NSCN (K) cadres, a banned organisation.” 36. The above apology cannot be accepted, hedged as it is with justifications sought to be advanced by the contemner. 37. An apology is intended to be evidence of real contriteness, the humanly consciousness of a wrong done, of an injury inflicted, and the earnest desire to make such reparation as lies in the wrong-doer's power; only then is it of any avail in a Court of justice. Apology must be voluntary, unconditional and indicative of remorse and contrition. An unconditional or unreserved apology in the case of a minor or technical contempt may be accepted to have the effect of purging the same. But the same could not be accepted in cases of serious or gross contempts. Whether an apology should be accepted or not as purging the contempt in any particular case must depend on the circumstances of each .case and the chief of these factors must inevitably be the nature or character of the contempt made. Where the contempt is of a partucularly gross character, any apology offered by the contemner should not be accepted as having purged the same. 38. Where the contempt is of a partucularly gross character, any apology offered by the contemner should not be accepted as having purged the same. 38. The Supreme Court even while upholding the constitutional validity of section 4 (a) to (d) of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 in Naga Peoples' Movement of Human Rights vs. Union of India, 1997 (10) Supreme 169 , has categorically held that the power conferred under section 4 (c) read with section 5 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, has to be exercised in consonance with the overriding requirement of clauses (1) and (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution which means that the person who is arrested by an officer specified in section 4 has to be made over to Officer In-charge of the nearest police station together with a report of the circumstances occasioning the arrest with the least possible delay so that the person arrested can be produced before nearest Magistrate within a period of twenty four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Court of the Magistrate and no such person can be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a Magistrate. 39. Apart from the mandate of law and the judgment of the Supreme Court, there was a specific writ issued against the contemner which he has flouted with impunity. He is found to be guilty of contempt under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 40. In one of its very recent judgment as reported in Govt of And lira Pradesh vs. G. Lakshman Redddy & another, 1997 (4) Supreme 340 , a question was posed as to what punishment should be imposed on the contemner?-It was a case where the execution of a decree for demolition of a compound wall constructed on police line was obstructed by police officers, who took the law into their hands. A false plea of commotion and disturbance was taken so as to justify the use of force. The plea was found to be false. The Apex Court was urged to accept the apology or imposition of fine. A false plea of commotion and disturbance was taken so as to justify the use of force. The plea was found to be false. The Apex Court was urged to accept the apology or imposition of fine. Only rejecting the plea, the Supreme Court observed that it would be an insult to the injury and considering the circumstances of the case, the contemners were punished to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default of payment of fine to suffer 15 days simple imprisonment. The fine was made payable personally from their pockets and the Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad was directed to deduct the same from their salaries and credit to the Court account. 41. It contrast, see the present case. Unlike demolition of wall, it is a case where life has been destroyed solely because of the disobedience of the writ issued by the Court, a precious human life is lost. Following G, Lakshman Reddy (supra), the contemner can be sentenced to imprisonment but in view of the direction made as regards the investigation of the case, we are purposefully avoiding imposition of sentence of imprisonment at this stage. The contemner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, or in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. This amount of fine of Rs. 10,000/- is payable personally by the contemner and shall be deductible from his salary, to be credited to the Court account. Ordered accordingly. The petition stands disposed as indicated above.