JUDGMENT B.S. Reddy, C.J. 1. This Court vide its orders dated 24.08.2000 and 05.09.2000 directed the District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur to make enquiry into the circumstances leading to disappearance of Sri. Sukhna Narzary and Shri Theparam Gayari and submit reports to this Court. 2. Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 32/2000 has been filed by Shri Uma Kanta Gayari alleging that his brother-in-law Sukhna Narzary was picked up by the Army personnel on 12.08.99 and since then he did not return home and is found missing. 3. Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 33/2000 has been filed by Srimati Chowkhli Gayari alleging that her husband Theparam Gayari was picked up by the Army Personnel on 24.10.1999 and since then he did not return or released by the Army. 4. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur took up inquiry into both the cases. The case set up by the Respondents before the learned District Judge is that on 11.08.1999 one Army vehicle was blown up with the help of improvised explosive device killing as many as five army jawans and critically injuring more than ten jawans. The blast took place on the PWD Road on Gohpur-Rajgarh Road near village Amlaiguri. Thereafter, search operations were carried out by the Army in the adjoining villages in order to apprehend the militants responsible for blowing of the vehicle. In the process, some persons including Rajen Deuri, Ranjan Daimari, Mahan Deuri and Theparam Gayari were apprehended for interrogation and all of them were released after questioning. The Respondents emphatically denied to have picked up any person by name Sukhna Narzary for whatever purposes. According to Respondents they have released Theparam Narzary after questioning him. Police registered two separate criminal cases and they could not trace out the missing individuals. 5. During the course of inquiry before the District Judge, Sonitpur as many five witnesses were examined on behalf of the writ Petitioners and one Subedar Mangal Singh, attached to 97 Field Regiment, Gohpur, who was entrusted with the job of search operation in the adjacent areas where the bomb blast took place, was examined on behalf of the Respondents. The police did not come forward and participate in the inquiry. 6. The police did not come forward and participate in the inquiry. 6. Learned District Judge upon perusal of oral evidence and materials available on record came to the conclusion that Sukhna Narzary was apprehended by the Army on 12.08.1999 and Theparam Gayari was apprehended by the Army for the second time on 24.10.1999 and both of them have not returned home and they are found missing since then. The comprehensive conclusion drawn by the learned District Judge is to the following effect. 10. In view of the discussions of evidence made hereinabove I have come to the conclusion that the Petitioners have proved their story of arrest of Sukhna Narzary and Theparam Gayari by the Army personnels through eye witnesses as well as circumstantial evidence. I find that P.Ws. 3 and 4 were also picked up by the Army on 12.08.99 and as such these witnesses are the eye witness about the arrest of Sukhana Narzary. P.W. 3 and 4 have thoroughly corroborated the testimony of P.W. 1 about the arrest of Sukhna Narzary. Similarly, P.W. 5 has also corroborated the testimony of P.W. 2 and other witnesses about the apprehension of Theparam Gayari for second time on the day of Lakhi Puja. All these apart surrounding circumstances also speaks that both these persons must have been picked up by the army on suspicion of their involvement in the bomb blast on 11.8.99. The Respondents have also admitted that after the bomb blast search operation was carried out in Amlaiguri and other adjoining villages. D.W. 1 has also admitted about the arrest of Theparam Goyari, Ranjan Daimari and Mohan Basumatary. Similarly the arrest of witness Rajen Deuri has also been admitted in the affidavit-in-opposition. All these circumstances rules out the possibility of abduction of Sukhna Narzary and Theparam Gayari by any other person, more particularly any militant organization. I would also like to mention here that one Milson Brahma also went missing since 26.8.99 from the same village. I had also enquired into the circumstances leading to the missing of Milson Brahma as per direction given by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (Crl.) 58/99. In my report submitted on 30.10.2000. I have held that all the incriminating circumstances are consistent only with the hypothesis that Milson Brahma was picked up by the army and all other possibilities were ruled out. In the present case the same circumstances are applicable. In my report submitted on 30.10.2000. I have held that all the incriminating circumstances are consistent only with the hypothesis that Milson Brahma was picked up by the army and all other possibilities were ruled out. In the present case the same circumstances are applicable. In addition, I had the benefit of getting ocular version of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5. In the result, I hold that Sukhna Narzary was apprehended by the army on 12.8.99 and Theparam Gayari was apprehended by the army for the second time on 24.10.99 and both of them have not returned home and they are missing since then. 7. The only conclusion that could eventually be drawn is that both the detenus were taken into custody by the Army for whatever purposes and probably may have been subjected to torture and killing in custody. The findings of the learned District Judge is not disputed before this Court by the Respondents. The inevitable conclusion that can be made is that both Sukhna Narzary and Theparam Gayari were taken into custody by the Army and they are found missing. 8. The only question that survives for our consideration is as to whether Respondents are liable for compensation to the Petitioners for causing disappearance of the individuals namely, Sukhna Narzary and Theparam Gayari? The liability of the Respondents in the present case to pay compensation to the Petitioners, cannot be doubted. Payment of compensation - Public Law Remedy 9. The Apex Court in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 2006 SCW 779 , referring to its earlier decisions including the decision rendered in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa 1993 (2) SCC 746 and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal 1997 (1) SCC 416 held that in cases where custodial death or custodial torture or other violation of rights guaranteed under Article 21 is established, courts may award compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 or 226. However, before awarding compensation, the Court will have to pose to itself the following questions: (a) Whether the violation of Article 21 is patent and incontrovertible, (b) Whether the violation is gross and of a magnitude to shock the conscience of the court, (c) Whether the custodial torture alleged has resulted in death or whether custodial torture is supported by medical report or visible scars or disability. Where there is no evidence of custodial torture of a person except his own statement and where such allegation is not supported by any medical report or other corroboration evidence, or where there are clear indications that the allegations are false or exaggerated fully or in part. Courts may not award compensation as a public law remedy under Article 32 or 226. but relegate the aggrieved party to the traditional remedies by way of appropriate civil/criminal action. 10. In our considered opinion, in the case in hand, there cannot be any doubt that the violation of Article 21 is patent and incontrovertible. There cannot also be any doubt that the violation is gross and of a magnitude that shocks our judicial conscience. The case in hand is one where the Respondents did not join any issue and raised any objection as regards the conclusion drawn and findings recorded by the learned District Judge whereunder it is held that army was responsible for causing disappearance of both the individuals. 11. In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa 1993 (2) SCC 746 , the Apex Court observed - "It is a sound policy to punish the wrongdoer and it is in that spirit that the courts have moulded the relief by granting compensation to the victims in exercise of their writ jurisdiction. In doing so the courts take into account not only the interest of the applicant and the Respondent but also the interests of the public as a whole with a view to ensure that public bodies or officials do not act unlawfully and do perform their public duties properly particularly where the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 is concerned." It is well settled that citizen complaining of the infringement of the indefeasible right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be told that for the established violation of the fundamental right to life, he cannot get any relief under the public law by the courts in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 12. It is unnecessary to remind the Respondents that under trials, convict or prisoners in custody are not denuded of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. State is under legal and constitutional obligation to ensure that there is no violation of the indefeasible rights of a citizen to life, except in accordance with law, while the citizen is in its custody. State is under legal and constitutional obligation to ensure that there is no violation of the indefeasible rights of a citizen to life, except in accordance with law, while the citizen is in its custody. It is also unnecessary to burden this short judgment of ours with various other pronouncements in this regard since the entire law on the subject has been summarized and recapitulated in Sube Singh (supra). 13. On the facts and on the findings recorded by the learned District Judge, the only conclusion that could be drawn is that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are responsible for causing disappearance of both Sukhna Narzary and Theparam Gayari and it is eminently a fit case for awarding compensation in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are fully satisfied that the materials available on record including the Report of the District Judge that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with all impunity violated the guaranteed fundamental rights under Article 21 of the said two individuals and the violation is patently incontrovertible. The gross violation is of such a magnitude, which shocks our judicial conscience. There is no reason to disbelieve the contents of the comprehensive report submitted by the learned District Judge after a detailed inquiry in which everybody concerned participated. The allegations leveled against the Army by no stretch of imagination can be characterized as a false one nor exaggerated in any manner. 14. We accordingly hold that the Petitioners are entitled to award of compensation for the missing of Sukhna Narzary and Theparam Gayari ever since 1999. We accordingly quantify the amount of compensation payable to each of the families of those two individuals at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The amounts are directed to be paid by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order. 15. Writ petitions are accordingly allowed with cost quantified at Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each payable by the Respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5. Petition allowed