Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 491 (GAU)

Sulekha Sarkar v. Union of India

2011-06-06

MADAN B.LOKUR

body2011
JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, C.J. 1. The Petitioners are the widow and son of the deceased Gourchan Sarkar, who died as a result of an incident of firing that occurred on 3.8.2000 in the Moharchhara market under Teliamura P.S. In that incident, Gourchan Sarkar was shot on his head and died instantaneously. 2. The Petitioners then moved this writ petition praying for compensation for the death of Gourchan Sarkar. When the matter was heard by the learned Single Judge, on an earlier occasion, a judgment and order was passed on 22.2.2002 awarding compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Petitioners. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the award of compensation, both the parties i.e. the Petitioners as well as State preferred appeals and both Writ Appeal No. 37 of 2002 and Writ Appeal No. 56 of 2002 were heard and disposed of by a Division Bench in which it was held that the District & Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala should enquire into (i) cause and circumstances leading to the firing, (ii) justification of firing, (iii) persons responsible for inflicting injuries and (iv) degree of responsibility and accountability of the Respondents, the role of the State Government and police personnel in such firing. 4. Pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench, the District & Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala conducted a fact finding enquiry and submitted his report on 9.1.2008. 5. It appears from a reading of the enquiry report that police personnel were surrounded by a mob of about 300/400 persons and it was that time that the police opened fire. The District & Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that while the police personnel were performing their duties, yet there was no cause for unjustified firing in violation of the law which not only resulted in the death of Gourchan Sarkar, but also resulted in injuries of another person, namely, Biswanath Gope @ Ghosh. 6. The Respondents have filed objections to the report through the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Home Department. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, in support of the objections contended that a mob had surrounded the police party and that mob had fired some shots and it was only in retaliation that the police party resorted to firing. Under these circumstances, Gourchan Sarkar received an injury on his head and he died as a result thereof. 8. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, in support of the objections contended that a mob had surrounded the police party and that mob had fired some shots and it was only in retaliation that the police party resorted to firing. Under these circumstances, Gourchan Sarkar received an injury on his head and he died as a result thereof. 8. The District & Sessions Judge had earlier considered this very contention and noted that P.W 39 SI Samiran Chakraborty who had investigated the incident stated specifically that during investigations it was not revealed that any villager was armed with any fire arm at the time of the incident. The District & Sessions Judge also noted that no one from the CRPF or the police personnel gave any explanation why preliminary steps such as a lathi charge and using of tear gas were not taken before opening fire on the mob in the market area. 9. I have already dealt with this issue today in the writ petition filed by Biswanath Gope @ Ghosh being W.P (C) No. 499 of 2000. I see no reason to take a different view or disagree with the District & Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the report is accepted. 10. In respect of Biswanath Gope @ Ghosh, the learned Single Judge had awarded compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Today I have upheld the award of Rs. 2,50,000/- in favour of Bishwajit Gope @ Ghosh. In the present case, Gourchan Sarkar was about 42 years of age and he was shot in head and died instantaneously. In the normal course, Gourchan Sarkar would be expected to live for at least another 15/20 years, if not more. He is survived now by his widow, Petitioner No. 1 before me and his son who was a minor at the time of the incident. I am told that his son has now attained majority. 11. Considering the fact that Bishwajit Gope @ Ghosh was awarded an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- for the injury caused to him which resulted in the amputation of his right leg, I am of the opinion that the Petitioners in the present case deserve much more compensation. It may be recalled that the learned Single Judge had awarded only Rs. 2,00,000/- in this case. 12. 2,50,000/- for the injury caused to him which resulted in the amputation of his right leg, I am of the opinion that the Petitioners in the present case deserve much more compensation. It may be recalled that the learned Single Judge had awarded only Rs. 2,00,000/- in this case. 12. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 65 of 2002 ( Smt. Chandrapati Debbarma v. State of Tripura and Ors.) where a person was killed by the TSR personnel while he was in their custody. The Division Bench, on a consideration of the issues raised and in public law, took the view that the Appellant therein, the mother of the deceased was entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Reliance was placed by the Division Bench on several decisions of the Supreme Court beginning with Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141 . 14. I am of the view that in the present case also, the ends of justice would be met if the Petitioners are paid compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- by the State as in the case of Chandrapati Debbarma. 15. It is, accordingly, directed that the State should, within two months, make payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the Petitioners as compensation for the death of Gourchan Sarkar. The payment should be made in any case on or before 15th August, 2011 at the latest. In case, the amount is not paid by 15th August, 2011, the Respondents will pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation. 16. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.