( 1 ) THIS is a taken up writ petition based on a news item published in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper dated 29-8-2001. The report in the news item reveals that one indrapati Jangaiah of shahbad was married to one Chandrakala of Damarapalli, that his brother-in-law one mr. Shankaraiah tried to compromise the family dispute and at that juncture, it is alleged, Jangaiah threatened Shankaraiah with dire consequences. As Mr. Shankaraiah was found missing, his father lodged a complaint with the 1st respondent viz. , Sub- inspector of Police Narsingi, P. S. and one mr. Harikrishna, Sub-Inspector of Police, moinabad arrested Jangaiah and from the date of arrest he was shifted from one police Station to another and tortured inhumanely and he was even made him to drink urine. It is also alleged that Jangaiah confessed killing his brother-in-law shankaraiah, but after 42 days police came to know that Shankaraiah was alive and working in a factory in Jinnaram. The police then brought Shankaraiah and released Jangaiah, but due to police torture jangaiah became weak and fragile and was forced to take treatment. The representation made by him to the 5th respondent- superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy district did not evoke any response. It is also alleged that the police with the help of the village elders tried to compromise the matter and the village elders directed shankaraiah to pay compensation of rs. 50,000/- to Jangaiah. ( 2 ) MR. C. Brahmaiah Chowdary, an advocate practising in this Court addressed a letter dated 29-8-2001, enclosing a copy of the newspaper report referred to hereinabove, to the Secretary, Legal Services authority requesting to initiate legal proceedings against the concerned officers and pay compensation to the victim in the interest of justice. ( 3 ) WHILE admitting the writ petition on 6-9-2001 this Court issued notice returnable in four weeks. After receiving the notice, respondents 2 and 3, as also respondents 5, 6 and 7 filed counter-affidavits denying the detention, assault and torture by third degree methods. It is, however, accepted in the counter that one Head constable and another Constable resorted to excesses and that they were kept under suspension. It was also averred in the counter-affidavits that the Sub-Inspector of police, Moinabad was transferred and a charge memo was issued against him by the Inspector of Police of the concerned police Station. It is, however, accepted in the counter that one Head constable and another Constable resorted to excesses and that they were kept under suspension. It was also averred in the counter-affidavits that the Sub-Inspector of police, Moinabad was transferred and a charge memo was issued against him by the Inspector of Police of the concerned police Station. In view of the statements made in the counter, this Court on 27-9-2001 passed the following observations and directions: if the averments made in the counter- affidavits are to be believed, we fail to understand as to how the aforementioned action has been taken against the concerned police officials. We even find that the Superintendent of Police has not examined the victim. We, therefore, cannot dismiss this public interest litigation on the ground that the allegations are false. We direct the district Judge, Ranga Reddy District to conduct an enquiry in the matter. The district Judge is directed to conduct a thorough enquiry in the matter by examining the victim and other witnesses, if any, and submit a report before this court. ( 4 ) AS directed by this Court, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ranga reddy District has conducted an enquiry in which twelve (12) witnesses were examined, and submitted his report vide Lr. Dis. No. 8391 of 2001 dated 6-11-12001. The conclusions of the learned District Judge indicate that the Inspector of Police, Narsingi Police circle, covering Moinabad P. S. also, by name mr. Narsimhulu and the Sub-Inspector of police, Moinabad viz. , Mr. Harikrishna, the Head Constables of Moinabad PS. viz. , mr. Rasool and Mr. Ramulu and other constables of Moinabad PS resorted to atrocities and meted out ill-treatment on jangaiah at different Police Stations. The learned District Judge made observations as to the nature of injuries and sufferings experienced by Jangaiah. The learned district Judge also specifically recorded his findings as to the role played by each of the above officers in treating/ill-treating jangaiah. ( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Home, Mr. Rama Rao, has invited the attention of this Court to the counter-affidavit filed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Deputy superintendent of Police) of Rajendranagar sub-Division. Paragraph 6 thereof reads as under:". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rama Rao, has invited the attention of this Court to the counter-affidavit filed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Deputy superintendent of Police) of Rajendranagar sub-Division. Paragraph 6 thereof reads as under:". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . that the Head constable and Constable working at moinabad P. S. acted excessively, accordingly the Superintendent of Police, r. R. District, has taken action against both the Head Constable 469 and PC 1754 who are responsible, accordingly they were suspended from service pending disciplinary enquiry. Further the Sub-Inspector of Police, Moinabad was also transferred on the ground that he has not properly handled the case and the CI of Police Jarsingi Circle dealt with departmental action by giving a charge memo for not correctly supervising. ( 6 ) RELYING on these statements, the learned Government Pleader submits that this Court may not take any further action. We are afraid, we cannot agree with the learned Government Pleader. ( 7 ) AS noticed above, the learned district Judge recorded that Mr. Narsimhulu, inspector of Police, kicked Jangaiah with boots indiscriminately causing severe injuries on different parts of the body besides subjecting to torture. The learned District judge also recorded that Mr. Harikrishna, sub-Inspector of Police, Moinabad P. S. resorted to similar torture. It, therefore, is a fit case where the Superintendent of police should take departmental action against all the officers named in the report of the learned District Judge dated 6-11-2001. It is also a fit case where the superintendent of Police should take appropriate criminal action against all the concerned by lodging a First Information report in the concerned Police Station and initiating criminal action against all the officers involved. We are giving these directions having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610 . We are giving these directions having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610 . After indicating the requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest and detention as preventive measures to reduce police tortures, inhumane or degraded treatment during investigation and interrogation in paragraph 36 of the judgment in D. K Basu (supra), the Supreme Court in paragraph 37 observed: failure to comply with the requirements hereinabove mentioned shall apart from rendering the concerned official liable for departmental action, also render him liable to be punished for contempt of court and the proceedings for contempt of Court may be instituted in any High Court of the country, having the territorial jurisdiction over the matter, (emphasis supplied) ( 8 ) AS the Sub-Divisional Officer has already initiated departmental action against those officials and as we are directing the superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy district - 5th respondent herein to take a departmental action as well as criminal action by registering a criminal case against the officers concerned, we do not intend to initiate contempt proceedings against the officers concerned, it does not, however, mean that we should leave the matter there. ( 9 ) AS rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate, who brought this incident to the notice of the Court, in case where a citizen is subjected to torture, inhumane and degraded treatment during police investigation, he is entitled to compensation. The following observations in D. K. Basu (supra) are apposite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . it is now a well accepted proposition in most of the jurisdiction, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must receive the amount of compensation from the state, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrong doer. In the assessment of compensation, the emphasis has to be on the compensatory and not on punitive element. In the assessment of compensation, the emphasis has to be on the compensatory and not on punitive element. The objective is to apply balm to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or the offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offence (irrespective of compensation) must be left to the criminal Courts in which the offender is prosecuted, which the State, in law, is duty bound to do. The award of compensation in the public law jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other action like civil suit for damages which is lawfully available to the victim or the heirs of the deceased victim with respect to the same matter of tortuous act committed by the functionaries of the State. . . . . . . . . . (emphasis supplied) ( 10 ) A case is made out that Jangaiah was detained for 42 days. It is also the finding of the learned District and sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy, that the officers named hereinabove practised atrocities and ill-treatment against jangaiah. As laid down by the Supreme court in D. K. Basu (supra), the State is vicariously liable if the police subject a citizen to torture and inhumane treatment during investigation. It is also held by the supreme Court that the State, which is vicariously liable to pay compensation shall also be entitled to be indemnified by the wrong doer i. e. , the police officials who subjected a citizen to such inhumane and degraded treatment. ( 11 ) HOW much amount must be awarded in such a case depends on the purpose of granting damages as well as by way of applying soothing balm to the physical and mental wounds suffered by the victim. Another way of fixing quantum of damages; as is done in tort cases is to rely on the decided cases which were adjudicated in the context of similar factual background. We may notice the various cases decided by the Supreme Court in which compensation was awarded and the reason for such compensation. ( 12 ) BE it also noted that the Supreme court awarded compensation as public law remedy leaving it open to the victims to approach the civil Court for claiming compensation for the civil wrong. We may mention that we have not taken into consideration cases of death in police custody where the Supreme Court awarded appropriate compensation. ( 12 ) BE it also noted that the Supreme court awarded compensation as public law remedy leaving it open to the victims to approach the civil Court for claiming compensation for the civil wrong. We may mention that we have not taken into consideration cases of death in police custody where the Supreme Court awarded appropriate compensation. ( 13 ) IN this case Sri Jangaiah is said to be an agriculturist, who was illegally detained and subjected to police atrocities in connection with a murder case, which is proved to be false. The deprivation of liberty in a given situation cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money and there cannot be any surer way of quantifying compensation as observed by the Courts. Having regard to the fact that the village elders themselves directed shankariah, brother-in- law of Jangaiah, to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) by way of compensation to jangaiah, we deem it appropriate to direct the State - 6th respondent herein to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to Sri Indrapati Jangaiah S/o. Kistaiah, aged 26 years, resident of Sreeram Nagar, moinabad Mandal, Rangareddy District within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The amount payable to Sri Jangaiah shall be deposited in the court of District and Sessions Judge, rangareddy District, who shall, on verification of the particulars of Sri Jangaiah, release the amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) immediately, and the balance of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank for a period of five years. Sri Jangaiah shall be entitled to withdraw the amount so deposited along with interest after the period of maturity. Needless to mention that the State shall stand indemnified and therefore they are entitled to recover the same from the officers concerned and the State is at liberty to pass appropriate orders in this regard for recovery of the amount from the officers concerned. ( 14 ) BEFORE parting with this case we may observe that we have passed the above order prima facie satisfied with the report submitted by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The findings whereof are also admitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, rajendranagar Sub-Division, Ranga Reddy district in the counter-affidavit. ( 14 ) BEFORE parting with this case we may observe that we have passed the above order prima facie satisfied with the report submitted by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The findings whereof are also admitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, rajendranagar Sub-Division, Ranga Reddy district in the counter-affidavit. The police officials concerned are at liberty to raise all pleas in the departmental enquiry, as also in the criminal case, that shall be initiated by the Superintendent of Police immediately after receipt of a copy of the order ( 15 ) THE writ petition is disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions. There shall be no order as to costs.