B.P. Katakey, J.:- 1. The petitioner alleging violation of the human rights guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution of India has filed the present petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000 under the public law remedy; for directing the respondents to conduct an investigation by an independent agency and to prosecute the erring police officials found responsible for the death of his son, contending, inter alia, that on 23.3.2001 while his son Krishna Mangal Jamatia, aged about 18/19 years, was in the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia in village Kafrubari under Birganj Police Station in the district of South Tripura, working as agricultural labour and looking after the domestic animals, he was killed by the police without any rhym or reason at around 6.30 p.m. It has further been contended in the writ petition that Tripunya Kumar Jamatia, who is related to the petitioner used to pay Rs.1,500 to Rs.2,000 per month to Krishna Mangal Jamatia, out of which he contributed about Rs.1,000 to his family. According to the petitioner, the police party consisting of the respondent Nos.3,4 and 5 along with other constables after identification of his son's dead body left the place and again returned at about 10.30 p.m. and took away the deadbody after preparation of the inquest report. The post mortem examination was thereafter conducted over the deadbody of Krishna Mangal Jamatia. According to the petitioner, the police party consisting of the respondent Nos.3,4 and 5 along with other constables after identification of his son's dead body left the place and again returned at about 10.30 p.m. and took away the deadbody after preparation of the inquest report. The post mortem examination was thereafter conducted over the deadbody of Krishna Mangal Jamatia. It is also alleged in the writ petition that the respondent No.3, the Officer-in-Charge of Birganj Police Station, with a view to cover up the misdeed of the police party lodged a false FIR on 24.3.2001 with Birganj Police Station at about 1.00 p.m. alleging that on receipt of information about the presence of NLFT extremists, namely, Akramasa Jamatia, Nayan Singh Jamatiya and two others in the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatiya, he alongwith the respondent No. 5 and TSR and police personnel went to Kafrubari village to arrest the extremists allegedly involved in the ambush of CRPF personnel at New Bampur on 3.3.2001 and while the police party were advancing towards the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia, the extremists started firing and in their self-defence the police party also fired back and after a while the extremists fled away and he found the dead body of Krishna Mangal Jamatia with one torch light and one country made pistol recovered from his possession, on the basis of which Birganj Police Station Case No.7(1)/2001 under section 148/149/353/307, IPC read with section 27 of the Arms Act was registered against Akramasa Jamatia, Nayan Singh Jamatia, Krishna Mangal Jamatia (since deceased) and two other unknown persons. According to the petitioner, his son Krishna Mangal Jamatia had falsely been implicated and shown him as collaborator of the extremists only with a view to cover up the misdeed of the police party. 2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2, the respondent No.3, the respondent No.4 and the respondent No. 5 have filed their respective affidavits-in-opposition. According to the petitioner, his son Krishna Mangal Jamatia had falsely been implicated and shown him as collaborator of the extremists only with a view to cover up the misdeed of the police party. 2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2, the respondent No.3, the respondent No.4 and the respondent No. 5 have filed their respective affidavits-in-opposition. In the joint affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, while admitting the police firing on 23.3.2001 in the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia at about 6.30 p.m., it has, however, been stated that the police party led by the respondent No. 3 went to Kafrubari village on receiving an information that a group of NLFT extremists comprising of Akramasa Jamatia, Nayan Singh Jamatia and two others were hiding in the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia, where they saw a person guarding the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia holding a torch light, but on seeing the police party, the said person alerted the extremists, who started firing indiscriminately on the police party from their weapons with a view to kill the police personnel on duty, for which the police party, under compulsion, had to open fire in their self-defence. According to the said respondents, while the extremists group fled away through the deep jungle, after a while on being searched a dead body was found, who was subsequently identified as Krishna Mangal Jamatia, from whose possession the police party recovered one torch light and one country made pistol. It has further been alleged that said Krishna Mangal Jamatia was a collaborator of the extremists and was providing food, shelter and also guarding them. It has also been stated that on the basis of the FIR lodged by the respondent No.3, Birganj Police Station Case No.7(1)/2001 was registered against Sri Akramasa Jamatia, Nayan Singh Jamatia, Krishna Mangal Jamatia (since deceased) and two unknown persons and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the court of the SD JM, South Tripura on 10.5.2001 under section 148/149/353/307, IPC read with section 27 of the Arms Act against all the persons, showing them as absconder. It has been pleaded in the said affidavits-in-opposition that Krishna Mangal Jamatia died during the encounter between the police and NLFT extremists hiding in the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia. 3. The stand taken by the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 in their respective affidavits-in-opposition is almost identical. It has been pleaded in the said affidavits-in-opposition that Krishna Mangal Jamatia died during the encounter between the police and NLFT extremists hiding in the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia. 3. The stand taken by the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 in their respective affidavits-in-opposition is almost identical. In their affidavits-in-opposition, they have also stated that on 23.3.2001 at about 6.30 p.m. an information was received at Birganj Police Station about hiding of a group of NLFT extremists headed by Akramasa Jamatia and Nayan Singh Jamatia in the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia and on receiving such information, they went to Kafrubari village and saw a person guarding the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia holding a torch light. It has also been stated that the said person, who was working as a sentry, having identified the police party alerted the extremists, who started firing indiscriminately from the sophisticated weapons for which the police party had to open fire in their self-defence. It has further been contended that the extremists group, however, subsequently fled away through the deep jungle and after the encounter was over, the police party conducted the search of the area and found the dead body of Krishna Mangal Jamatia from whose possession one torch light and one country made pistol were recovered. A first information report was thereafter, lodged on 24.3.2001 with Birganj Police Station by the respondent No. 3, which was registered as Birganj Police Station Case No.7(1)/2001 showing Akramasa Jamatia, Nayan Singh Jamatia and Krishna Mangal Jamatia (since deceased) as accused. It has further been contended that the inquest over the dead body of Krishna Mangal Jamatia was done by the respondent No.4 in presence of the witnesses, who also seized the country made pistol as well as the torch light found in the possession of the deceased. The further contention of the respondents is that on the following day, the respondent No.4 prepared the hand sketch map of the place of occurrence where the deadbody of Krishna Mangal Jamatia was found, with separate index and thereafter, post mortem examination was conducted in Amarpur Hospital. The further contention of the said respondents is that after completion of the investigation in the said police station case, the charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons, who, however, were shown as absconders. The further contention of the said respondents is that after completion of the investigation in the said police station case, the charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons, who, however, were shown as absconders. The said respondents in their affidavits-in-opposition have stated that Krishna Mangal Jamatia was an active collaborator of extremists group and on the basis of certain informations on various dates, prior to the date of the incident, i.e., on 23.3.2001, various GD entries were recorded, wherefrom it appears that Krishna Mangal Jamatia was directly involved with the extremists. The respondents in their affidavits have denied the allegation of false encounter and also lodging of a false FIR by the respondent No. 3 and have stated that Krishna Mangal Jamatia, who was an active collaborator of the extremist group, was killed in the encounter with the extremists group hiding in the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia. 4. A Single Bench of this court, in view of the allegation and the counter allegation made in the writ petition and the affidavits-in-opposition filed, considering it necessary to unearth the cause of death of Krishna Mangal Jamitia, so as to enable the court to arrive at a proper finding, vide order dated 16.12.2003 directed the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur to conduct an enquiry to the death of Krishna Mangal Jamitia and to submit a report within a period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of the order, allowing both the parties to adduce evidence in such enquiry. An enquiry was accordingly conducted by the learned Sessions Judge, wherein the writ petitioner examined 4 (four) witnesses and tendered another witness in support of his contention in the writ petition. The respondents in the writ petition have also examined 2 witnesses, namely, the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.4. An enquiry was accordingly conducted by the learned Sessions Judge, wherein the writ petitioner examined 4 (four) witnesses and tendered another witness in support of his contention in the writ petition. The respondents in the writ petition have also examined 2 witnesses, namely, the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.4. The learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, on completion of the enquiry, submitted his report dated 7.7.2004 in a sealed cover with the following finding : "Everything as noted above proves that the petitioner and his witnesses did not depose truly and there are suppression of facts rather the statement of the police personnel including the FIR, G.D. entry, etc., and the circumstantial evidence clearly proves that Krishna Mangal was guarding the extremists in the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia and there were firing from the extremists and the police personnel and as a result one bullet of any party most probably of extremists injured Krishna Mangal Jamatia who died due to such bullet injury. So the police personnel cannot he held responsible for the death of Krishna Mangal Jamatia." 5. The writ petition was, thereafter, heard by a Single Bench of this court on 16.7.2004 and delivered the judgment on 30.7.2004 dismissing the writ petition by accepting the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in his report and observing that neither the writ petitioner nor the respondents have any objection in acceptance of the finding recorded in such report by the learned District Judge. A review petition being Review Petition No. 11/2004 was then filed by the writ petitioner basically contending that no opportunity was given to him to object to the finding recorded by the learned District Judge in his report, which was submitted in a sealed cover and was opened for the first time on the date when the writ petition was heard. The learned Single Judge, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the said review petition vide judgment and order dated 13.5.2005 by holding that the report of the learned District Judge, which was submitted in a sealed cover, was accepted without giving any opportunity to the writ petitioner to file objection. The learned Single Judge consequently set aside the judgment and order dated 30.7.2004 passed in the writ petition and directed listing of the writ petition for re-hearing. The learned Single Judge consequently set aside the judgment and order dated 30.7.2004 passed in the writ petition and directed listing of the writ petition for re-hearing. The writ petitioner, thereafter, filed the objection against the finding recorded by the learned District Judge in his report dated 7.7.2004 praying for rejection of such finding recorded by the learned District Judge in such report and to hold that the petitioner could substantiate his plea taken in the writ petition, in the enquiry conducted by the learned District Judge. The case was though thereafter, listed on a number of occasions, the same, however, was adjourned on different grounds. Ultimately on 26.8.2009 the learned Single Judge directed the Registry to place the case before a Division Bench, in view of the requirement of hearing of the writ petition claiming compensation alleging killing in a fake encounter by a Division Bench, that is how the matter has been placed before the Division Bench. 6. We have heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, the learned seniojr counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. P. Datta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. 7. Referring to the averments made in the writ petition as well as the deposition of witnesses examined in the enquiry conducted by the learned District Judge to find out the cause of death of the petitioner's son, Krishna Mangal Jamatia, it has been submitted by Mr. Bhowmik, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that the police went to the place of occurrence on 23.3.2001 at about 6.30 p.m. and resorted to unproved firing causing death of the petitioner's son. Bhowmik, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that the police went to the place of occurrence on 23.3.2001 at about 6.30 p.m. and resorted to unproved firing causing death of the petitioner's son. It has further been submitted that though the respondents in their affidavits-in-opposition filed in the writ petition took the plea that the police went thereon receiving the information relating to the presence of certain extremists element in the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia and an encounter between the extremists and the police personnel took place on the date of occurrence, they could not prove the same by adducing any evidence in the enquiry conducted, as, apart from examining the respondent Nos.3 and 4 as witnesses in the said proceeding, none of the other witnesses to the seizure memo or the inquest conducted were examined to substantiate such plea and, on the other hand, the petitioner by examining the witnesses present in the place of occurrence could prove his case as projected in the writ petition. That apart, according to the learned senior counsel, it is evident from the deposition of the witnesses examined that not a single fired cartridge was recovered from the place of occurrence, though it was the plea of the respondents that on seeing the police party, the extremists opened heavy indiscriminate fire from their sophisticated weapons, which compelled the police party to resort to firing in self-defence. According to the learned senior counsel, the story put forwarded by the respondents relating to the making of the GD entries from the month of December 2001 till the date of the incident regarding the involvement of the deceased in the extremist activities also cannot be believed when such a stand had not been taken by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their affidavit-in-opposition filed in the writ petition and had no mention even in the FIR lodged. In any case, according to the learned senior counsel, even if Krishna Mangal Jamatia is accepted as the collaborator of the extremists, as projected by the respondents, the police have no right to kill him, as has been done in the instant case. Such action on the part of the respondents violates the fundamental right to life of Krishna Mangal Jamatia and his life has been taken away by the police in the name of encounter, which is evident from the deposition of witnesses examined. 8. Such action on the part of the respondents violates the fundamental right to life of Krishna Mangal Jamatia and his life has been taken away by the police in the name of encounter, which is evident from the deposition of witnesses examined. 8. The learned senior counsel further submits that the learned District Judge on some very flimsy grounds which are not at all relevant for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of death of the deceased, i.e., discrepancies relating to the age, nature of employment etc., has recorded the rinding that the witnesses examined by the petitioner in the said enquiry did not depose truly have suppressed material facts and it was proved that he was in all probably hit by the bullet fired by the extremists, though that was not the case of any of the parties and although nothing has been said by any of the witnesses to that effect. The learned senior counsel submits that such finding of the learned District Judge is perverse being not based on the evidences on record. Mr. Bhowmik, therefore, has submitted that under the public law remedy, the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the death of his son, who had been deprived of his fundamental right to life. It has also been submitted that since the life of the petitioner's son had been taken away by the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 by their illegal action; direction may be issued to the respondent-State to register a FIR, conduct an investigation and to punish the said respondents for murdering the petitioner's son. 9. Mr. Chakraborty, the learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, referring to the report dated 7.7.2004 submitted by the learned District Judge as well as the deposition of witnesses examined in such proceeding, has submitted that it is evident from the deposition of the witnesses examined by the respondents that when the police party, on receiving specific information relating to the presence of the extremists in the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia in the village Kafrubari, went to arrest such extremists elements, Krishna Mangal Jamatia, the deceased, was found to have guarding the place, who on seeing the police party cautioned the extremists, who in turn resorted to heavy indiscriminate firing on the police party, which compelled the police party to retaliate in self-defence. According to the learned counsel, it is also in evidence that after a while the extremists fled away from the place and thereafter, when the search was conducted the dead body of Krishna Mangal Jamatia was found in the place of occurrence, who was also a collaborator of the extremists, which was sought to be proved by the respondents by proving the GD entries recorded since the month of December 2001. According to the learned State counsel, it is, therefore, evident that Krishna Mangal Jamatia, who was a collaborator of the extremists died in the encounter and, therefore, the learned District Judge has rightly recorded the finding in his report and as such, the petitioner is not liable to any compensation. 10. Relating to the non-recovery of the fired cartridges from the place of occurrence, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel that the reason for such non-recovery has been explained by the respondents by examining witnesses who have stated that as by the time it was dark, no such recovery could be made. Referring to the charge sheet filed by the police on the basis of the investigation conducted in Birganj Police Station Case No.7(1)/2001, it has also been submitted by the learned State counsel that during investigation, the involvement of Krishna Mangal Jamatia in the extremist activities was also found, as has been mentioned in the charge sheet. Mr. Chakraborty, therefore, submits that the petitioner is neither entitled to any compensation nor any case is required to be registered against the police personnel relating to the death of Krishna Mangal Jamatia. Referring to the discrepancies in the deposition of the petitioner's witnesses examined in the proceeding, as found by the learned District Judge in his report, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel that such discrepancies render the versions of such witnesses untrustworthy and unreliable and, hence, the learned District Judge has rightly rejected the petitioner's version relating to the cause of the death of Krishna Mangal Jamatia. 11. Mr. 11. Mr. P. Datta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 adopting the argument advanced by the learned State counsel has also submitted that the respondent Nos.3 and 4, who were examined as witnesses in the proceeding conducted by the learned District Judge has stated in clear terms that Krishna Mangal Jamatia, involved in extremist activities and hiding in the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia, was killed during the encounter with such extremists. Mr. Datta, therefore, submits that the learned District Judge has rightly recorded the finding that there was no fault on the part of the police party and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the writ petition. 12. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the respective pleadings of the parties, apart from the deposition of the witnesses examined in the enquiry conducted by the learned District Judge as well as the report dated 7.7.2004 of the learned District Judge submitted on the basis of the enquiry conducted in terms of the order dated 16.12.2003 passed by a Single Bench of this court. 13. As noticed above, the petitioner's case as projected in the writ petition is that his son Krishna Mangal Jamatia was killed by the police on 23.3.2001 at about 6.30 p.m. in village Kafrubari under Birganj Police Station without there being any provocation and he was killed because of the high handedness of the police party. Such plea has been denied by the respondents in their respective affidavits-in-opposition contending, inter alia, that there was an encounter with the extremist elements present in the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia and in such encounter Krishna Mangal Jamatia, who was an active collaborator of the extremists, died. In view of such pleas taken by the respective parties in their pleadings, an enquiry was directed to be conducted by the learned District Judge to find out the cause of death of Krishna Mangal Jamatia and accordingly, an enquiry was conducted and report dated 7.7.2004 was submitted. In view of such pleas taken by the respective parties in their pleadings, an enquiry was directed to be conducted by the learned District Judge to find out the cause of death of Krishna Mangal Jamatia and accordingly, an enquiry was conducted and report dated 7.7.2004 was submitted. In such proceeding before the learned District Judge 4 witnesses, namely, (i) Sri Krishna Mohan Jamatia (PW1), the petitioner, who is the father of the deceased Krishna Mangal Jamatia, (ii) Tripunya Kumar Jamatia (PW2), in the courtyard of whose house the dead body of Krishna Mangal Jamatia was found and in whose house, according to the respondents, the extremists were taking shelter, (iii) Bikram Manik Jamatia (PW3), who is a neighbour of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia and also a witness to the inquest, and (iv) Shib Sadhan Jamatia (PW4), another neighbour of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia and also a witness to the inquest conducted on the body of Krishna Mangal Jamatia, were examined by the petitioner. Nikunja Mohan Jamatia (PW5) was tendered as witness by the petitioner, who has not been cross-examined by the respondents. The respondents examined Bijoy Sen (DW1), who is the respondent No.3 in the writ proceeding and Officer-in-Charge of Birganj Police Station as well as Sri Kapil Das (DW2), who is the respondent No.4 and the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the said police station. The witnesses were cross-examined by the respective parties. The FIR, the seizure list, inquest report, charge sheet, various GD entries and copies of the family register in respect of Krishna Mohan Jamatia and Tripunya Kumar Jamatiya were also produced before the learned District Judge in the said enquiry conducted. 14. The learned District Judge in his report dated 7.7.2004 found the prosecution's witnesses untrustworthy and unbelievable as certain contradictions in their depositions, as recorded in paragraph 13 of the said report, were found. Paragraph 13 of the said report is quoted below : "13. So from the evidence so far collected I find the following contradictions which go against the petitioner side and rendered the statement of the petitioner not believable. (a) Some witnesses deposed that it was twilight and sufficient light was there and not dark but some other witnesses deposed that it was dark and 'kupibati' was there. So from the evidence so far collected I find the following contradictions which go against the petitioner side and rendered the statement of the petitioner not believable. (a) Some witnesses deposed that it was twilight and sufficient light was there and not dark but some other witnesses deposed that it was dark and 'kupibati' was there. (b) Tripunya deposed that he and his wife and Krishna Mongal were sitting in the verandah and at that time Krishna Mangal went to the goat shed. Other witnesses deposed that only Tripunya was found in the residence. (c) On the matter of appearance of Krishna Mangal from outside and going to goat shed with the torch light to find whether all the goats were returned or not as stated by PW1 has not been corroborated by Tripunya and there is contradiction. (d) Matter of entry of police personnel just after the firing and leaving the house without making any inquest or without taking the dead body has been contradicted by PW 3 and PW 4. (e) Non-finding of torch light and Pistol near the dead body. Different witnesses deposed contradicting each other. (f) Regarding the matter of existence of the name of Krishna Mangal Jamatia in the Panchayat Register as the member of the Krishna Mohan Jamatia has been suppressed. (g) The matter of receiving salary by Krishna Mangal Jamatia from Tripunya Kumar has been stated by different witnesses giving different amount. There are contradictions on the matter of basis of payment whether monthly or yearly. (h) The age of entry into the service as a labour by Krishna Mangal in the house of Tripunya has been contradicted rendering the statement of petitioner to be a false one having not corroborated by other witnesses." 15. The learned District Judge has in his report recorded the finding that Krishna Mangal Jamatia was guarding the extremists in the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia and there were exchange of fire between the extremists and the police personnel, as a result of which, one bullet of either party, most probably of the extremists, hit Krishna Mangal Jamatia who eventually died due to such bullet injury and, hence, the police personnel cannot be held responsible for the death of Krishna Mangal Jamatia. Since such finding recorded by the learned District Judge has been objected to by the petitioner by filing written objection, we shall now discuss the evidences as adduced by the respective parties in the proceeding before the learned District Judge to appreciate as to whether the finding, as has been recorded by the learned District Judge, is proper and based on the evidences on record. 16. Shri Krishna Mohan Jamatia, the writ petitioner, who has been examined as PW1, in clear terms has stated that as per their custom he kept his son Krishna Mangal Jamatia in the house of his maternal uncle, Tripunya Kumar Jamatia, (maternal grand father of Krishna Mangal Jamatia) for doing the household job, who used to pay something and out of which Krishna Mangal Jamatia give him Rs.700. It has further been stated that on receiving information about killing of his son by police, he went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of Krishna Mangal Jamatia in the courtyard of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia, who told him that his son was killed due to police firing. He has also stated that his son was never involved with any extremist activities and has also denied the recovery of any torch light or pistol from his possession. According to this witness, when he arrived at the place of occurrence, the police personnel were not present and only P/2 hour thereafter, the police came and took away the dead body. During cross-examination the respondents did not challenge the version of this witness about his arrival at the place of occurrence immediately after the incident, absence of police personnel for about 1V£ hour and taking away the dead body by the police thereafter. The cross-examination confined to the age of the deceased, the version of the witness relating to keeping his son in the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia for doing the household work and the income of the deceased as well as relating to the involvement of the deceased with the extremist activities. The suggestion put by the respondents in those respects have, however, been denied by the witness. 17. The suggestion put by the respondents in those respects have, however, been denied by the witness. 17. PW2, Tripunya Kumar Jamatia, in whose house the incident occurred, in his deposition has stated that in the evening of the day of incident he alongwith Krishna Mangal Jamatia and his wife were sitting in the verendah of his house and then Krishna Mangal Jamatia went to the goat shed to see whether all the goats were returned or not and at that time one bullet hit the chest of Krishna Mangal Jamatia, who fell down. According to this witness, the police thereafter, entered his house and noticing the dead body left the place and again returned afterwards and took the dead body away. This witness has further stated that after the incident only Bikram Manik Jamatia (PW3), Sib Sadhan Jamatia (PW4) and Nikunja Mohan Jamatia (PW5) came to his house and none else. This witness has also stated that Krishna Mangal Jamatia was not involved in any extremist activities and no pistol was found in his courtyard and at no point of time the police earlier visited his house. This witness has also stated that he used to pay Rs.800 per month to Krishna Mangal Jamatia. During cross-examination, he has reiterated his statement that the police killed Krishna Mangal Jamatia. The suggestion relating to the presence of extremist elements in his house has been denied, so also guarding of such extremist elements by Krishna Mangal Jamatia. 18. PW3, Bikram Manik Jamatia, who was the witness to the inquest report, in his deposition has stated that after the firing incident he saw 2/3 police personnel passing through the road in front of his house and on hearing the firing he went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of Krishna Mangal Jamatia with bullet injury in his chest lying on the courtyard of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia. This witness has further stated that as the police personnel left the place of occurrence after the firing, they informed the CRPF camp, which was about ½ k.m. away from the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia and then the CRPF personnel came and took away the dead body. This witness has further stated that as the police personnel left the place of occurrence after the firing, they informed the CRPF camp, which was about ½ k.m. away from the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia and then the CRPF personnel came and took away the dead body. This witness in categorical term has stated that Krishna Mangal Jamatia was not at all involved in any extremist activities and the witnesses in the seizure, namely, Uttam Mohan Jamatia and Ram Ganj Jamatiya were not present at the place of occurrence on that day. During cross-examination he has denied the suggestion put by the respondents that on hearing the firing he went to the jungle and the police alongwith others took them from the jungle to the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia. 19. Shib Sadhan Jamatia, who was also a witness to the inquest report, was examined as PW4. In his deposition supporting the version of PWs 1, 2 and 3 he has stated that on hearing the sound of firing he came to the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia and found Krishna Mangal Jamatia lying with bullet injury in his chest in the courtyard of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia. He has further stated that after the firing the police left the place and the dead body was taken away by the police about 2 (two) hours later. It has also been stated that no weapon was found with Krishna Mangal Jamatia and he has not seen the police seizing either any weapon or the torch light. A categorical statement has also been made that Uttam Mohan Jamatia and Ram Gary Jamatia, the witnesses to the seizure, were not present in the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia on the night of occurrence. During cross-examination, PW4 has denied the suggestion relating to the involvement of Krishna Mangal Jamatia in the extremist activities. The statement of the PWs 2, 3 and 4 relating to the absence of Uttam Mohan Jamatia and Ram Ganj Jamatia in the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia on the date of occurrence has not been challenged by the respondents during the cross-examination. PWS, Nikunja Mohan Jamatia having been tendered by the petitioner without recording examination-in-chief, it has no value at all. 20. PWS, Nikunja Mohan Jamatia having been tendered by the petitioner without recording examination-in-chief, it has no value at all. 20. Shri Bijoy Sen (DW1), the Officer-in-Charge of Birganj Police Station, the respondent No.3 in this writ proceeding, in his evidence has stated relating to the receipt of information about the presence of extremist elements in the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia on 23.3.2001, recording of the GD entry and about going to the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia on that date at about 6.30 p.m. According to this witness, when they reached the place of occurrence they found Krishna Mangal Jamatia guarding the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia with a torch light and on seeing the police party, he cautioned the extremists, who immediately opened heavy indiscriminate fire by sophisticated weapons, for which the police party had to retaliate in self-defence. This witness has further stated that the extremists taking the advantage of the darkness fled away from the place of occurrence and after the firing was stopped, they searched the area and found the dead body of Krishna Mangal Jamatia, whereafter the inquest was conducted and the seizure was made seizing a torch light as well as a country made pistol near the dead body of Krishna Mangal Jamatia. This witness has further stated that there was police record relating to the involvement of Krishna Mangal Jamatia in the extremist activities, in support of which this witness has produced the GD entries. An explanation sought to be given by this witness as to why none of the fired cartridges could be recovered from the place of occurrence, stating that as there was dark, no such recovery could be made. Nothing, however, has been stated why no search was conducted in the next morning to, find out the fired cartridges when it was the case of the respondents that there was heavy indiscriminate firing between the police and the extremists in the place of occurrence. 21. Sri Kapil Das (DW2), the respondent No.4 in this writ petition, in his deposition has stated that after receiving the message from DW1 for reinforcement, he went to the place of occurrence with some police personnel and found that DW1 with his staff were in ambush. This witness has stated that he was informed by DW1 that there was an encounter with the extremists for about 10-15 minutes back. This witness has stated that he was informed by DW1 that there was an encounter with the extremists for about 10-15 minutes back. He has further stated that there thereafter, he alongwith DW1 went to the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia and found the dead body lying in the courtyard of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia, who was, however, not present in the house. It has further been stated that some persons of the locality, who were found hiding in the jungle identified the dead body. It has further been stated that one torch light and one country made pistol were recovered near the dead body, which were seized. The fact of lodging of FIR on 24.3.2001 has also been stated. 22. From the discussions of the evidences as adduced by the respective parties, it is, therefore, evident that the version of the petitioner's witnesses relating to the absence of the witnesses to the seizure, namely, Uttam Mohan Jamatia and Ram Ganj Jamatia allegedly seizing the torch light as well as the country made pistol near the dead body of Krishna Mangal Jamatia on the date of occurrence has not been challenged by the respondents during cross-examination of those witnesses. That apart, the respondents in their evidence have admitted that there was absolutely no recovery of any fired cartridges/bullets from the place of occurrence, though according to them, the extremists present in the house of Tripunya Kumar Jamatia, on being alerted by Krishna Mangal Jamatia, started heavy indiscriminate firing at the police party by sophisticated weapons, for which the police party had to retaliate in self-defence. The explanation given by the respondents for non-recovery of such fired cartridges/bullets from the place of occurrence, that due to the darkness no such recovery could be made, is not at all acceptable, when there is allegation of heavy firing. Had there been heavy firing from the side of the extremists such bullets naturally would have been recovered from the place of occurrence, if not on the night of occurrence, on the next morning. It has been admitted by the respondents that no such recovery has been made. Non-recovery of such fired bullets/cartridges creates doubt about the truthfulness of the respondents' story. The petitioner, on the other hand, has been able to substantiate his plea that Krishna Mangal Jamatia received the bullet injury on his chest as the police fired. It has been admitted by the respondents that no such recovery has been made. Non-recovery of such fired bullets/cartridges creates doubt about the truthfulness of the respondents' story. The petitioner, on the other hand, has been able to substantiate his plea that Krishna Mangal Jamatia received the bullet injury on his chest as the police fired. The presence of the police in the place of occurrence is admitted. The firing by the police is also admitted but according to the police, they resorted to the firing because of the heavy indiscriminate firing by the extremists, which, however, as discussed above, could not be proved by the respondents. Even assuming that Krishna Mangal Jamatia was a collaborator of the extremist organization, in support of which the GD entries were produced by the respondents in the enquiry, the police have no right to kill when there was no resistance from him. 23. The learned District Judge, as it appears from the report dated 7.7.2004, had rejected the petitioner's version by disbelieving the witnesses examined by him on the grounds, which have already been quoted above. Such discrepancies have absolutely no relation to the cause of the death and not material for the purpose of ascertaining such cause. From the evidences as adduced by the parties and discussed above it is abundantly clear that the respondents could not prove that there was heavy indiscriminate firing between the extremists and the police party, which compelled the police party to retaliate in self-defence and thereby causing the death of Krishna Mangal Jamatia. The finding of the learned District Judge, as rendered in his report, therefore, cannot be accepted. 24. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Every citizen of the country has the fundamental right to life and he cannot be denied of his fundamental right except according to the procedure established by law. If a person is killed by the police without any justification, it amounts to the denial of his fundamental rights as enshrined by the Constitution under article 21. Award of compensation against the State is an appropriate effective remedy for redress and established infringement of the fundamental right under article 21, by a public servant. If a person is killed by the police without any justification, it amounts to the denial of his fundamental rights as enshrined by the Constitution under article 21. Award of compensation against the State is an appropriate effective remedy for redress and established infringement of the fundamental right under article 21, by a public servant. What would be the quantum of compensation, however, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Award of such compensation by way of public law remedy would also be in addition to the aggrieved person's right to claim additional compensation in a civil court, in enforcing the private law remedy. From the materials available on record, as discussed above, it is evident that Krishna Mangal Jamatia has been deprived of his fundamental right as enshrined under article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to compensation as an appropriate and effective remedy for redress of the violation of the fundamental right by the police. The State is vicariously liable for such action on the part of the police, in respect of the compensation awardable. 25. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions and the materials available on record, we are of the view that an amount of Rs.3,00,000, would be the reasonable and appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded for violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, direct the respondent No.1 to pay the said amount of Rs.3,00,000 to the petitioner within 6 weeks from today. 26. Relating to the prayer for directing the State respondents to register a FIR, to conduct investigation and to punish the police personnel involved in the killing of Krishna Mangal Jamatia, we are of the view that since the occurrence took place on 23.3.2001 and more than 9 (years have elapsed from the date of occurrence, no fruitful purpose will be served in directed such investigation and hence, we refrained ourselves from issuing such direction. 27. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.