Judgment 1. Through this Crl. Writ Petition, Smt. Balbir Kaur has prayed for issuing writ or order or direction to the State of Punjab directing investigation by an independent agency in regard to the killing of her husband Balbir Singh an Ex-serviceman who was arrested by Lopoke police during 1988 and was shown to have run away from custody which is not a fact. It is alleged that in fact her husband was tortured to death and dead body was thrown and further for adequately compensating her on account of the death of her husband who was the only earning member and further for directing appropriate action including registration of a case and prosecution against all those persons especially respondent No. 3 Shri Surjit Singh, SHO, PS Gharinda during 1988 who had took her husband and eliminated him. It is alleged that during the year 1988 Punjab was gravely afflicted with the menance of terrorism. It was terrorism by terrorists. It was State terrorism also. During those days, Punjab police wielded unbridled power. They snuffed out anybody a life without any compunction and without being accountable. Commission of excesses without compunction by the Punjab Police was a routine. Petitioners husband also became victim of State terrorism. He was eliminated without any reason. She has been running from pillar to post in quest of justice but it has so far been an idle dream for her. Her husband was in Army. He sought discharge from the Army on account of certain family constraints when he had put in about 4-5 years of service. After discharge, he opened a shop in village Shahura and thus started eking out his livings by honest means. He was leading a peaceful life. He was not associated with any terrorist outfit. He was law abiding having faith in the integrity of India. On 25-1-88, respondent No. 3, Shri Surjit Singh, SHO, PS Gharinda came to village Shahura and arrested her and her husband Balbir Singh on the allegation that they were selling liquor. It was a false case. They are scheduled castes belonging to the lower rungs of the society, as such, could not put up any protest. Entire village vouch-safed their innocence. She was let off after 2 days whereas her husband Balbir Singh was badly tortured. It was a false case. They are scheduled castes belonging to the lower rungs of the society, as such, could not put up any protest. Entire village vouch-safed their innocence. She was let off after 2 days whereas her husband Balbir Singh was badly tortured. Her brother who is incidentally named Balbir Singh was also picked up from his village which falls in Gharinda police station. He was also badly tortured along with her husband. Village Shahura was not in the jurisdiction of PS Gharinda, as such, respondent No. 3, Shri Surjit Singh, SHO, PS Gharinda was not competent to catch hold of her husband and subject him to inhuman treatment. Respondent No. 3, Shri Surjit Singh, SHO, PS Gharinda did not agree to release her husband although he was approached by her husbands elder brother Jit Singh along with other people. No case was registered against her husband. Respondent No. 3, Shri Surjit Singh, SHO, PS Gharinda took aside Jit Singh and told him that there was serious allegation against his brother Balbir Singh because of which he could be jailed for a long period and also he may have to lose his life. He told Jit Singh to arrange Rs. one lack in case he wanted to save his brother Balbir Singh. Eventually, a sum of Rs. 60,000.00 was settled with him in case they wanted to save the life of Balbir Singh. Jit Singh collected Rs. 60,000.00 by borrowings from various relatives and paid it to respondent No. 3, Shri Surjit Singh, SHO, PS Gharinda on 4-2-88. Her husband was let off by respondent No. 3, Shri Surjit Singh, SHO, PS Gharinda after accepting Rs. 60,000.00. Her family did not want to precipitate the matter because of unbridled powers the police was wielding and the police could take away any bodys life with impunity. Rs. 60,000.00 had to be paid to respondent No. 3, Shri Surjit Singh, SHO, PS Gharinda in the interest of the safety of her husband. Bad days were however, looming large on her husbands head. Respondent No. 2 Charanjit Singh who was posted as SHO, PS Lopoke during the year 1988 came to know that her husband had been picked up by respondent No. 3, Shri Surjit Singh, SHO, PS Gharinda and had been let off on receipt of substantial amount by respondent No. 3, Shri Surjit Singh, SHO, PS Gharinda. Respondent No. 2 Charanjit Singh who was posted as SHO, PS Lopoke during the year 1988 came to know that her husband had been picked up by respondent No. 3, Shri Surjit Singh, SHO, PS Gharinda and had been let off on receipt of substantial amount by respondent No. 3, Shri Surjit Singh, SHO, PS Gharinda. When her husband came after 7-8 days of his unlawful custody with respondent No. 3, Shri Surjit Singh, SHO, PS Gharinda, he was in bad shape. He had been badly tortured and inhumanly beaten. Still, he was not found guilty of any terrorist activity or any other unlawful activity. Respondent No. 2 took away her husband again in the second week of February, 1988. Arrest of Balbir Singh led to almost an upsurage in the village. A number of people from the village gathered in the police station and vouch-safed about his innocence not involved in any terrorist activity or any unlawful activity and was being harmed unnecessarily. Charanjit Singh, SHO, PS Lopoke respondent No. 2 did not hear their entreaties or assurance and rather demanded Rs. 70,000.00 saying that Rupees 60,000/- had been paid to respondent No. 3, Shri Surjit Singh, SHO, PS Gharinda in whose jurisdiction village Shahura did not fall. Rs. 70,000.00 could not be arranged by her to be paid to respondent No. 2 so as to gag him. Respondent No. 2 was so callous that while taking away Balbir Singh on or around 11-2-88, he snatched some amount from her son Lakhwant Singh who was then studying in 8th class and was to purchase articles for sale on their shop in the village. When her husband was taken to PS Lopoke, he was in such a bad shape that it was difficult for him even to walk. Jit Singh again collected the village panchayat and met respondent No. 2 who reiterated his demand for Rs. 70,000.00. Her family was helplessly waiting for some wise counsel to dawn upon respondent No. 2 and was also in the process of arranging some money to save his life as he was shown to have run away from police custody. As per the newspaper report, he was shown to be a terrorist who was successful in running away while he was being taken on a motor cycle in connection with the recovery of arms. As per the newspaper report, he was shown to be a terrorist who was successful in running away while he was being taken on a motor cycle in connection with the recovery of arms. The story put up was that on the motor cycle on which he was being taken slipped resulting in the fall of the police and Balbir Singh and his successful escape from police custody. It is alleged that it was unimaginable that a terrorist would be taken on a motor cycle for the recovery of arms by the police during night. As per her information, he died in police station while being tortured and beaten and this was ploy by the police to account for the death of an innocent person on account of the torture of the police. Her family gave a rejoinder in the newspaper to the aforesaid news appearing in the paper branding her husband as a terrorist detailing therein the circumstances how he was taken by the police and how he was tortured to death by the police. Her family wrote letter to Home Minister, Govt. of India, New Delhi with copies to Governor of Punjab, DGP, Punjab and other functionaries on 15-2-88 raising her voice against the unlawful detention and torture of her husband by the police and his eventual death in police custody. She has not been able to secure justice though in quest of justice, she has been running from pillar to post all these years. She has knocked the door of this Court for directing investigation by independent agency so as to bring to the fore who was responsible for eliminating her husband Balbir Singh. She has also prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000.00 to be paid to her by the State and the respondents for snuffing out the life of her husband who was quite innocent and who was the sole bread winner of the family. 2. Respondents contested this writ petition. It was urged that case FIR No. 21 dated 10-2-88 was registered against Balbir Singh, husband of the petitioner, under Section 307, 148, 149, IPC, 25 Arms Act, 3/4 TADA Act when respondent No. 2 was posted as SHO, PS Lopoke. He arrested him on 13-2-88. It was denied that he snatched any amount from Lakhwant Singh son of the petitioner on 11-2-88. He arrested him on 13-2-88. It was denied that he snatched any amount from Lakhwant Singh son of the petitioner on 11-2-88. It was also denied that he ever demanded a sum of Rs. 70,000.00 from Jit Singh. It was an admitted fact that Balbir Singh ran away from police custody while he was being taken on a motor cycle for the recovery of arms. Case FIR No. 23 dated 13-2-88 was registered under Section 224, IPC against Balbir Singh at PS Lopoke in which he was declared proclaimed offender. It was also denied that respondent No. 3 who was posted as SHO, PS Gharinda came to village Shahura. It was denied that ever arrested Balbir Singh. It was denied that he raised any demand for Rs. 1 lac on Ajit Singh for saving his brother. 3. Vide order dated 2-7-98 passed by this Court, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar was directed to conduct a fact finding inquiry as to the cause of death of Balbir Singh, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar went into the matter and submitted report dated 5-6-99. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar found that there appears to be foul play on the part of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and it was not believed by her that he was being taken on a motor cycle for the recovery of arms and that he ran away from police custody. 4. Respondent No. 2 filed objections to the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar urging that case FIR No. 21 dated 10-2-88 was got registered at PS Lopoke under Sections 307, 148, 149, IPC, 25 Arms Act and 3/4 TADA Act against Balbir Singh by Malook Singh Ex-Sarpanch of Dhanao Khurd. Case was investigated by him in the bona fide discharge of his duties. Balbir Singh was arrested on 13-2-88. During arrest, he made disclosure statement regarding the illegal keeping of arms. He was taken on a motor cycle for the recovery of arms by the police. In the cover of darkness, he snatched the handcuffs and escaped. With regard to his escape, case was registered under Section 224, IPC at PS Lopoke. Balbir Singh was not traced. Eventually, he was declared proclaimed offender. Alleged demand of Rs. 70,000.00 by him was concocted by the petitioner only to cover up the fact that Balbir Singh had escaped from the custody of the police and had been absconding thereafter. With regard to his escape, case was registered under Section 224, IPC at PS Lopoke. Balbir Singh was not traced. Eventually, he was declared proclaimed offender. Alleged demand of Rs. 70,000.00 by him was concocted by the petitioner only to cover up the fact that Balbir Singh had escaped from the custody of the police and had been absconding thereafter. It is not even remotely established that Balbir Singh was killed in police custody. He was exonerated in inquiry which was got conducted against him by the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, Amritsar. He was exonerated in an inquiry conducted by Shri H. S. Randhawa, Superintendent of Police, (HQs.), Majitha. 5. Respondent No. 3 also put in objections to the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar dated 15-6-1999 urging that as per the allegations in the writ petition itself, Balbir Singh was not in his custody, when he allegedly died. He was in the custody of respondent No. 2, SHO, PS Lopoke during those days when he allegedly died. 6. So far as respodent No. 3, SHO, PS Gharinda during the year 1988 is concerned, he was not concerned so far as the alleged murder of her husband is concerned. Respondent No. 3 is alleged to have taken her husband in his custody on 25-1-1988. He is alleged to have been let off after 7-8 days of his alleged illegal custody with respondent No. 3. Petitioners husband Balbir Singh is alleged to have been taken into custody by repsondent No. 2 Charanjit Singh, SHO PS Lopoke during the year 1988 in the second week of Feb. 1988. Balbir Singh was thus not in the custody of respondent No. 3 when he was allegedly eliminated. Balbir Singh is alleged to have been taken into custody on or around 11-2-1988. In other words, he was alive on or around 11-2-1988 when he was alleged to have been taken into custody by respondent No. 2. Against respondent No. 3, the allegation is that he took Balbir Singh into custody on 25-1-1988 and he was extremely tortured and when after 7-8 days, he was released, he was in bad shape. Balbir Singh was not got medically examined after his alleged release from the alleged unlawful custody of respondent No. 3 and therefore, it cannot be affirmatively said that he was tortured by respondent No. 3. Balbir Singh was not got medically examined after his alleged release from the alleged unlawful custody of respondent No. 3 and therefore, it cannot be affirmatively said that he was tortured by respondent No. 3. Even otherwise, village Shahura falls in the jurisdiction on PS Lopoke and not in the jurisdiction of PS Gharinda and, therefore, respondent No. 3 who was SHO PS Ghanrinda had no power on Balbir Singh. On the statements of Balbir Kaur etc. which do not find any corroboration , it will be of no use to order the prosecution of respondent No. 3 on the charge of murder or on the charge that he accpeted Rs. 60,000.00 as illegal gratifiction in lieu of releasing Babir Singh from his alleged custody. 7. So far as respondent No. 2, Charanjit Singh, SHO, PS Lopoke during the year 1988 is concerned, on 13-2-1988, he took Babir Singh into custody in case FIR No. 21 dated 10-2-1988 under Sections 307, 148, 149, IPC, 25 Arms Act and 3/4 TADA Act. Balbir Singh was interrogated. During interrogation, he made disclosure statement regarding the keeping of illegal arms. He was being taken on motor cycle by the police for the recovery of arms and he escaped . With regard to his escape, case FIR No. 23 dated 13-2-1988 was registered under Section 224, IPC at PS Lopoke. It was submitted by Shri S.S. Saron, counsel for respondent No. 2 that Balbir Singh escaped from the custody of the police on 13-2-1988 when he was being taken for the recovery of arms. Case FIR No. 23 dated 13-2-1988 under Section 224, IPC was registered against him at PS Lopoke. It was submitted by him that Balbir Singh remained untraced. He was declared a proclaimed offender, Balbir Kaur has stated that Balbir Singh was taken in to custody by respondent No. 2 (SHO PS Lopoke) around the second week of Feb. 1988 and he wanted Rs. 70,000.00 as illegal gratifiction if she ment his release. She could arrange this amount. He was badly tortured in police custody. It was either a case of escape of Balbir Singh from police custody or it was a case of his elimination. 1988 and he wanted Rs. 70,000.00 as illegal gratifiction if she ment his release. She could arrange this amount. He was badly tortured in police custody. It was either a case of escape of Balbir Singh from police custody or it was a case of his elimination. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not plausible that Balbir Singh, who was in handcuffs, could escape from the custody of the police when he was being taken by SHO Charanjit Singh, HC Gurdial Singh, HC Avtar Singh, constable Joginder Singh, constable Gurdev Singh on motor cycles as if Baldev Singh had tried to escape, they would have fired at him to scare him. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the presence of SHO Charanjit Singh, etc. it was not plausible that Balbir Singh could have escaped. It was submitted that it was not plausible that during those days, police would take a person who was a terrorist for the recovery of arms during night on a motor cycle. It was submitted that Balbir Singh was subjected to inhuman torture by respondent No. 2 which resulted into his death and he was shown to have been arrested in case FIR No. 21 dated 10-2-1988 of PS Lopoke false and then he was shown falsely to have escaped from custody when he was being taken on 13-2-1988 for the recovery of arms. 8. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that no action should be taken on this Crl. writ petition as it was filed in the year 1997 when Balbir Singh was allegedly done away with in the year 1988. It was submitted that it would be unjust to order prosecution after such a long lapse of time. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she could not raise her voice against the atrocities of the police soon after because of the fear of state terrorism. It was after the state terrorism had ceased that she took up courage to raise her voice. Soon thereafter, letters were addressed to the Home Minister, Govt. of India with copies to Governor of Punjab, DGP, Punjab, SSP Amritsar and DC Amritsar for an appropriate action against those responsible for eliminating Balbir Singh. 9. If Balbir Singh had escaped, he would have returned after state terrorism had come to an end. Soon thereafter, letters were addressed to the Home Minister, Govt. of India with copies to Governor of Punjab, DGP, Punjab, SSP Amritsar and DC Amritsar for an appropriate action against those responsible for eliminating Balbir Singh. 9. If Balbir Singh had escaped, he would have returned after state terrorism had come to an end. It was submitted that natural inference that should be raised is that he was killed while in police custody. 10. In my opinion, after such a long lapse of time, it would not be useful to order the prosecution of respondent No. 2 either. In criminal case, the only fact that can be proved against respondent No. 2, is that on 13-2-1988 he was holding the custody of Balbir Singh and he should account for Balbir Singh. As per him he escaped when he was being taken for the recovery of arms in pursuance of his disclosure statement made during investigation of case FIR No. 21 dated 10-2-1988 (ibid). For his escape case under Section 224 was registered at PS Lopoke on 13-2-1988 in which he was declared a proclaimed offender. In criminal cases, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt while in civil cases, only the preponderance of probability is in favour of the view that if he had escaped from police custody on 13-2-1988, he would have returned to his family after the state terrorisim had ceased. In this case, thus, in my opinion, ends of justice would be adequately met if the family of Balbir Singh is suitably compensated in terms of money. It was held in Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera V/s. The State of Orissa (1993) 2 JT (SC) 503 that for custodial death, the State can be called upon to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased. It was held in Rudul Shah V/s. State of Bihar (1983) 3 SCR 508 that state can be called upon to pay compensation consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental right to life and liberty of the individual in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction by the Court. It was held in Rudul Shah V/s. State of Bihar (1983) 3 SCR 508 that state can be called upon to pay compensation consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental right to life and liberty of the individual in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction by the Court. In Bhim Singh V/s. State of J. and K. 1984 (Supp) SCC 504 the Hon ble Supreme Court awarded Rupees 50,000/- as compensation to the petitioner payagle by the State of J. and K. when it was found that he was arrested and imprisoned with mailicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded. In view of what I have said above, I do not find any adequate grounds to order the registration of case against respondent No. 2 either, I, however, do find adequate grounds to compensate the family of Balbir Singh, compensation to be payable to Balbir Kaur by the State of Punjab for the unceremonial exist of Balbir Singh from this horizon brought about by the functionaries of the State. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000.00 shall be paid as compensation to the petitioner by the State of Punjab within a period of three months of the receipt of copy of this order.