T. Nandakumar Singh, J.- By this writ petition, the petitioner, wife of late Pheiroijam Sanajit Singh, is seeking monetary compensation (by way of public law remedy) as exemplary damages for established infringement of indefeasible right of her late husband, under Article21 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the award of compensation as a public law remedy is in addition to the private law remedy under the law of torts. 2. Heard Mr. M. Rakesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amarj it Naorem, learned CGSC appearing for respondent Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 as well as Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned senior G. A, appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 and 6. 3. The succinct facts, leading to filing of the present writ petition, are recapitulated; The petitioner is a simple and unsophis­ticated housewife of late Pheiroijam Sanajit Singh, resident of Nongada Awang Leikai, PO, Lamlong, RS., Lamlai, Imphal East District and she has two minor children namely, baby Pheiroijam Sanjita Devi and Master Pheiroijam Benjamin Singh, aged about 4 and 2 years respectively. 4. On 31.05.2004 at about 1.00 a.m. (0100 hrs) a team of Army personnel of 19 Rajput Rifles (Bikaner) stationed at Leimakhong, Imphal, without giving any warning broke the door and entered into the house of the petitioner while they were fast asleep. All the Army personnel wore combat (camouflage) dress; some of them covered their faces with black cloth. In the house of the petitioner, her husband, her two minor children and two elder brothers of her husband, Shri Pheiroijam Itocha Singh, PW-1 and Pheiroijam Ibomcha Singh, P W-2 and other family members were also sleeping in their respective rooms at the time the personnel of 19 Rajput Rifles broke the door and entered into the house on 31.05.2004 at about 1.00 a.m. The said Army personnel pulled out the petitioner's husband, late Shri Pheiroijam Sanajit Singh and his elder brothers, Shri Pheiroijam Itocha Singh, PW-1 and Pheiroijam Ibomcha Singh, PW-2 from their respective rooms. They were made to squat just below the verandah of their house and a powerful torchlight flashed on their faces one after another. Of the saidArmy personnel one Manipuri speaking personnel asked who is Sanajit. The said Manipuri speaking personnel got hold of Shri Ph. Ibomcha Singh, PW-2 and took him towards the gate. Shri Ph. Ibomcha's minor son, master Ph. Of the saidArmy personnel one Manipuri speaking personnel asked who is Sanajit. The said Manipuri speaking personnel got hold of Shri Ph. Ibomcha Singh, PW-2 and took him towards the gate. Shri Ph. Ibomcha's minor son, master Ph. Helemba Singh shouted in Manipuri 'Baba, where are you going, Baba', but one of the Army personnel got caught him by his neck and threatened him not to follow his father. The said Army personal came back and took away petitioner's husband Ph. Sanajit Singh. However, Ph. Ibomcha Singh was set free from the main road and petitioner's husband was taken away with them without issuing arrest memo. 5. The petitioner and other members of her family requested the Army personnel not to take her husband away. At the time of arresting the petitioner's late husband, Ph.Sanajit Singh by the Army personnel he was wearing only a Manipuri traditional cloth used by man at home i.e. "khudei". Despite request for releasing the petitioner's husband the Army personnel took him away without giving an opportunity of wearing a trouser and shirt, 6. The petitioner and members of her family, having no alternative, approached the Lamlai Police Station, which is about 1 Knis from her house. At the time of approaching the Police Station, the petitioner's brother-in-law Shri Ph.Itocha Singh, PW-1, elder brother of her husband was accompanied by some neighbours and local woman i.e. members of the local lady organization. They were not allowed to enter by the sentry of the Police Station at the gate and asked them to come in the next morning only. They have to come back in dismay and have to wait for the day break. The petitioner and her family members including their village folk started looking for petitioner's husband in and around the village. On the next morning i.e. 31.05.2004 the petitioner along with some members of the local 'meiral paibi' (lady organization) went to the Army camp located at Chingarel to locate whereabouts of her husband. At about 11.00 a.m. the petitioner was informed that a dead body was found at Senjam Chirang and the same was taken to RIMS Morgue for post mortem examination. Thereafter, petitioner's brother-in-law, Shr Ph.Itocha, PW-1 went to the morgue and identified the dead body of her husband, Ph.Sanajit Singh. 7. At about 11.00 a.m. the petitioner was informed that a dead body was found at Senjam Chirang and the same was taken to RIMS Morgue for post mortem examination. Thereafter, petitioner's brother-in-law, Shr Ph.Itocha, PW-1 went to the morgue and identified the dead body of her husband, Ph.Sanajit Singh. 7. The Army personnel also lodged false ejahar to the O/C Sekmai P.S., stating that 19 Rajput Rifles (Bikaner) having the powers under Armed Forces Special Power Act, carried out an ambush in Gen. A. Senjam Chirang at Khurkhul-Phumlou road on night of 30-31 May 2004. The ambush party was fired upon from the underground militants on being challenged. In the exchange of fire, one unidentified underground was killed at the spot and one carbine, 8 live rounds and 01 fired case were recovered from the spot of encounter. The said ejahar (report) was treated as OE of FIR No.42 (5)04 SEK P.S under Section 121/121-A/307IPC, 13 UA (P) Act 7 25 (1-B) Arms Act. On the same day, one Sub Inspector K.Joykumar Singh of Sekmai Police Station held inquest over the dead body of the petitioner's husband lying on the paddy field situated at Senjam Chirang village near Mahajon Golai with his face upward. 8. On 31.05.2004 at about 4.50 p.m. post mortem examination was carried out on the dead body of petitioner's husband, late Ph. Sanajit Singh at the mortuary of RIMS, relevant portions of the report are reproduced below: "Wearing apparels a) White round neck, sleeveless T' shirt with the label (BAD BOYS) with a hold on the right lower part of the backside and multiple holes on the front corresponding to the injuries. Dirt and mud stains on the front side and blood stains on both front and back sides. Camouflage longpant, zip ha]f opened, blood stains present on right buttock area and back side of waist, mud stains present over thigh, knee and legs area on the front side. 1 hole 0.4 cm in diameter present on the right buttock area situated 5 cm below waist line and 9 cm right to midline; 1 tear corresponding to 2nd metallic hook and hook was absent. Dried faecal matter like stain present on the inner aspect of right buttock area, 3 cm right to midline. Length and waist of the long pant is 43 inches and 34 inches respectively. Dried faecal matter like stain present on the inner aspect of right buttock area, 3 cm right to midline. Length and waist of the long pant is 43 inches and 34 inches respectively. b) A pair of camouflage hunting boot and marked as 41 and No.08735 on the sole. Postmortem changes and other appearances of body: Rigormortis developed all over the body, postmortem staining developed on the back and fixed, dried blood stain over the face, chest, back of trunk and both upper limbs, pale. The length between the head and the highest point of iliac crest is 34 inches and waist at the level of umbilicus in 29 inches. External injuries: a) Entrance wound of bullet on the lower most part of occipital region of head, 7 cm right to midline and 136 cm above heel, measuring 0.6 cm X 0.5 cm with red abraded collar based infer laterally. Exit wound on left eyebrow, 4 cm left to midline and 145 cm above heel, measuring 1cm X 1.2 cm with red irregular margins. The track involves the scalp, skuil bone, left eyebrow. b) Entrance wound on back of chest at the level of 8th intercostals space, situated 7 cm right to midline and 97 cm above heel measuring 0.5 cm X 0.6 cm with red abraded collar based infer medially and exit on right side of front of chest at the level of 6th intercostals space, 14 cam right to midline and 119 cm above heel, measuring 1 cm X 1.5 cm with red irregular margins. The track involves skin, chest wall, lung (right side) including pleura. c) Entrance wound on the left lumber region situated 8 cm left to midline and 91 cm above left heel measuring 0.5 cm X 0.6 cm with red abraded collar based infero laterally and exit at the level of 7th rib in front, 5 cm left to midline and 108 cm above heel measuring 2 cmX 1.5cm with red irregular margins. The track involves skin, muscles, left kidney, left diaphragm, left pleura, left lung, chest wall. d) Entrance wound of bullet on right side of buttock, 10 cm right to midline and 72 cm above right heel, 14 cm below right iliac crest, measuring 0.5 cm X 0.6 cm with red abraded collar based inferolaterally. The track involves skin, muscles, left kidney, left diaphragm, left pleura, left lung, chest wall. d) Entrance wound of bullet on right side of buttock, 10 cm right to midline and 72 cm above right heel, 14 cm below right iliac crest, measuring 0.5 cm X 0.6 cm with red abraded collar based inferolaterally. Exit on left side of abdomen 2 cm left to midline and 92 c above heel, 3 cm superolateral to umbilicus measuring 2 cm X 1.2 cm with red irregular margin along with prostrusion of loop of intestine. The track involves skin, muscles, pelvic bone, 5th lumber vertebra, mesentery intestines omentum. e) Entrance wound of bullet on right side of buttock, 7 cm right to midline and 79 cm above heel (7 cm below iliac crest) measuring 0.5 X 0.6 cm2 with red abraded collar based inferolaterally. Exit on right side of upper part of abdomen, 4 cm right to midline and 91 cm above heel, measuring 2 cm X 1 cm. The track involves skin, muscle, pelvic bone, coecum, mesentery and small intestine. f) Entrance wound of bullet on right side of buttock, 6.5 cm right to midline and 82 cm above heel (4 cm below iliac crest) measuring 0.5 X 0.6 cm2 with abraded collar based inferolaterally. Exit on left side of abdomen 3 cm left to midline and 92 cm above heel, 4 cm superolateral to umbilicus measuring 2 cm X 1 cm with red irregular margins. The track involves skin, muscle, pelvic bone, mesentery, omentum, intestines." 9. On 01.06.2004, elder brother of the petitioner's husband i.e. Ph.Itocha (PW-1) lodged a written complaint to the O/C, Lamlai RS. stating that on 31.05.2004 at about 1.00 a.m. his younger brother late Shri PHeiroijani Sanajit Singh was picked up from his house after breaking their door and forcefully taken away by a team of 19 Rajput Rifles without assigning any reason and without issuing arrest memo. He was wearing only a 'khudei' a Manipuri traditional cloth used by men for wearing at home, and his dead body was found at the morgue of the RIMS, Imphal. The dead body was found to be wearing camouflage pant which did not fit to his size and the 'khudei' which he wore at the time of arrest was not with him. The dead body was found to be wearing camouflage pant which did not fit to his size and the 'khudei' which he wore at the time of arrest was not with him. An FIR being No. 61 (6) 2004 Lamlai RS under Section 4577 364/34IPC & 27 Arms Act was registered. 10, The illegal, brutal and inhuman custodial killing of the petitioner's husband late Shri Pheiroujam Sanajit Singh by the 19 Rajput Rifles (Bikaner) had compelled the village folks to form a Joint Action Committee (JAC) for demanding justice by booking the culprits and to give compensation to the bereaved family. And accordingly a memorandum was submitted to Hon'ble Chief Minister by the said JAC on 1.6.2004. On 06.01.2004 the petitioner submitted an application to the D.C., Imphal West District for seeking ex-gratia for killing her husband by the personnel of 19 Rajput Rifles (Bikaner) while her husband was in their custody, in an unjustified manner. As the representations filed by the petitioner and by the JAC and also action taken by the JAC were not fruitful, the petitioner approached this Court. 11. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed a joint affidavit in opposition wherein the case of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was that the ambush was laid on the basis of information received regarding movement of some militants in the General Area Senjam Khnou RG 3197 at the General Area of Senjam Chirang RG 3198 on 31.05.2004. At about 0345 hours of 31.05.2004 a suspect was noticed moving in the area of ambush site. On being challenged by the ambush team, the individual opened fire the troops and started running. In retaliatory fire, the unknown militant was killed. An ejaliar was lodged with Sekmai P.S. and dead body of the slain militant was handed over to the Police at the site of the incident. Details of the person killed were - Name: Pheiroijam Sanaj it (as per newspaper report) and dead body of the militant was handed over to SHO, Police Station, Sekmai on 31.05.2004 at 0430 hours. A police case being FIR No.42 (5)04 Sekmai P.S. under Section 121/121-A/307IPC, 13 UA(P)Act & 25 (1 -B) Arms Act was registered. Further case of the respondents was that one country made 9 mm Carbine, live rounds of 9 mm Carbine-08 rounds and fired cases-01 rounds were also recovered. 12. A police case being FIR No.42 (5)04 Sekmai P.S. under Section 121/121-A/307IPC, 13 UA(P)Act & 25 (1 -B) Arms Act was registered. Further case of the respondents was that one country made 9 mm Carbine, live rounds of 9 mm Carbine-08 rounds and fired cases-01 rounds were also recovered. 12. As there was disputed question of fact leading to the death of the petitioner's husband, late Ph.Sanajit Singh, this Court passed order dated 24.04.2006 in the present writ petition directing the learned District Judge, Manipur East to make an enquiry and submit report. Accordingly, the learned District Judge, Manipur East conducted enquiry. In the enquiry, the learned District Judge examined eight PWs namely, (1) Ph.Itocha Singh- PW.1, (2) Ph. Ibomcha Singh, - PW.2, (3) Ph (O) Rita Devi - PW.3, (4) Ph.Nirmala Devi-PW.4, (5) Dr. Khan-gembam Pradipkumar Singh-PW.5, (6) Maibam Digbijoy Meitei- P W.6, (7) Sapam (O) Ibemcha Leima - P W.7 and (8) K. Joy-kumar Singh-PW.8. Respondent Nos. 1-8 also examined three witnesses namely, (1) Ranbir Singh, (2) Virpal Singh and (3) Captain Rahul BalMishra. 13. The learned District Judge, after completing the inquiry, submitted report dated 31.07.2010 to this Court. Copies of the report of the District Judge, Manipur East were also furnished to the parties for objection or comment. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed objection which will be considered in the appropriate stage of this judgment, 14. The petitioner, who was examined as P W-3 before the District Judge, Manipur East deposed that her husband, Ph.Sanajit Singh had two elder brothers namely, Ph.Itocha Singh, PW. 1 and Ph.Ibomcha Singh, PW.2 and two sisters namely, Ph.Bimola Devi and Ph.Nirmala Devi, Smt Bimola Devi had already married. Families of the said two elder brothers i.e. PWs-1 and 2 were residing with the family of the petitioner comprising the petitioner, her husband and their two minor children in the same house constructed in 'L' shape. 1 and Ph.Ibomcha Singh, PW.2 and two sisters namely, Ph.Bimola Devi and Ph.Nirmala Devi, Smt Bimola Devi had already married. Families of the said two elder brothers i.e. PWs-1 and 2 were residing with the family of the petitioner comprising the petitioner, her husband and their two minor children in the same house constructed in 'L' shape. Family members of the petitioner and family members of petitioner's two elder brother-in-laws resided in separate rooms of the same house, hi the intervening night of 30th and 31st May 2004 at around 1 a.m. while she was sleeping in her room along with her husband, latePh.Sanajit Singh with their two minor children she was woken by the banging sound of kicking on the door of the common room, occupied by her father-in-law, Shri Ph.Thaimu and his daughter Nirmala, younger sister of the petitioner's late husband. Instantaneously the door of the said room was broke open from outside and she saw two Army personnel in combat dress entering into her room. At that moment she and her late husband along with their two children were in her room and electric bulb in the room was also lighted; her husband asked the Army personnel' what is happening'; then the said two Army personnel dragged her husband from bed and taken to the courtyard of their house just below the verandah. She also asked the Army personnel “what was the fault of her husband" and she saw Shri Ph.Itocha, P W. 1 and Ph.Ibomcha, PW.2 coming out of their respective rooms and also they were made to squat in the courtyard in row. Her husband was also made to squat in the courtyard in row; then a powerful torchlight flashed towards their faces by the Army personnel one by one and enquired in Manipuri -"who is Sanajit", they remained silent. In the meanwhile, the Army personnel dragged Ph.Ibomcha, PW.2 towards the gate of their house. Immediately one of the Army personnel caught hold of his son who was shouting to the Army personnel 'Baba where are you going' and threatened him to stop shouting further. One of the Army personnel came near the place where her husband was made to sit enquired pointing at Sanajit, 'are you Sanajit'. Then the Army personnel dragged her husband towards the gate of their house. One of the Army personnel came near the place where her husband was made to sit enquired pointing at Sanajit, 'are you Sanajit'. Then the Army personnel dragged her husband towards the gate of their house. At about 10 to 20 Army personnel in combat dress came to her house in that night. When her husband was dragged out she shouted 'what is happening'. Instantaneously, one of the Army personnel ran towards her pointing gun and threatened not to raise alarm by saying "jao jao" (go, go) and pushed her back to her room. When she entered her room she found her son crying and she put him on her back and came out from the room. She found all the armed personnel had already left their house taking her husband and her brother-in-law, Ph.Ibomcha, PW.2. After a few minutes, her brother-in-law, PhJtocha, P W.1 along with some of her family members including Meratombi, (her uncle's wife), Kullachandra, her uncle etc etc went to Lamlai P.S. for lodging an ejahar. After some lime, her brother-in-law, Ph.Ibomcha, PW.2 came back alone and informed that he was released by the Army personnel from the main road (Imphal Ukhrul Road) and her husband Sanajit was taken by them in the vehicle. About two hours later her brother-in-law Ph.Itocha, PW.1 came back from Lamlai P.S and informed that the sentry at the gate of the said Police Station asked to come on the next day as the O/C of the Police Station already went to sleep. The petitioner, PW.3 further deposed that after the day break at about 7 a.m. she along with local elders and members of 'Meira Paibi' (woman organization) numbering about 20-30 including Sapam Ibemcha Devi- PW.7 and Khumbongmayum Khomdonbi Devi went to the Army camp located at Chingarel in a passenger bus. On reaching the said camp she along with other meira paibis requested the sentry on duty to call out one Thingujam Imo Singh who was working there. Thereafter the said Th.lmo Singh came out at the gate of the said army camp, she narrated the incident happened in the preceding night about the arrest of her husband by some personnel and further requested him to locate the whereabouts of her husband and he assured her that he will extend all possible help. Thereafter the said Th.lmo Singh came out at the gate of the said army camp, she narrated the incident happened in the preceding night about the arrest of her husband by some personnel and further requested him to locate the whereabouts of her husband and he assured her that he will extend all possible help. At about 10/11 a.m. when she was at her house she was informed that one dead body was found lying at Senjam Chirang Village. The said information was conveyed to her by the sister-in-law, namely Binatombi, who further informed her that the dead body was taken to morgue of RIMS. Then her brother-in-law, Ph.Itocha, PW.1 went to the RIMS and identified the said dead body as the dead body of her husband. On the next day her brother-in-law, Ph.Itocha Singh, PW.1 lodged report with the O/C, Lamlai P. S about the arrest and the death of her husband. After a few days she came to know that the personnel of 19 Rajput Rifles had already lodged a report with the O.C., Sekmai PS. about the killing of her husband on 31.05.2004. On 01.06.2004 a Joint Action Committee was formed by the inhabitants of her village and Shri Pheiroijam Hemanta Singh was elected as Convener of the said Joint Action Committee. Thereafter, a memoran­dum was submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Manipur about the arrest and killing of her husband by the personnel of 19 Rajput Rifles. Some months later, she also submitted an application to the D.C., Imphal West for claiming ex-gratia for the unjustified killing of her husband by the personnel of the 19Rajput Rifles. In her cross-examination, respondents made some suggestions that Shri Ph.Sanajit Singh, her husband, died in an encounter which took place at Senjam Chirang Area in the intervening night of 30/31.05.2004. In the cross examination, respondents made an attempt by making suggestion that the statement of the petitioner in her cross examination in-chief are not correct. The petitioner denied those suggestions and respondents had utterly failed to shake the petitioner in cross examination. 15. Statement of brothers of the petiti­oner's husband namely, Ph. Itocha, PW. 1 and Shri Ph.Ibomcha, PW.2 fully corroborated the statement of PW.3 and; PW.7, indepen­dent witness, Sapam Ongbi Ibemcha Leima, local woman deposed that she was working as Cashier of Nongada Meira Paibi. 15. Statement of brothers of the petiti­oner's husband namely, Ph. Itocha, PW. 1 and Shri Ph.Ibomcha, PW.2 fully corroborated the statement of PW.3 and; PW.7, indepen­dent witness, Sapam Ongbi Ibemcha Leima, local woman deposed that she was working as Cashier of Nongada Meira Paibi. On the intervening night of 30th and 31 st May, 2004 at around 12.30 a.m. she along with the other members of Meira Paibi were at the Kutcha shed of Nogada Bazar. AT that time there were 7/8 members of Meira Paibi on duty at the said shed. Some Army personnel numbering about 15 came to the bazaar shed and they went to the homestead land of Khumbongmayum Nando which lies to the southern side of the said kutcha shed. And after sometime she along with the other Meira Paibis went to the homestead land of the said Nando Singh. When they reached the courtyard of the said Nando Singh the Army personnel took out Kh.Basanta Singh from inside the house as if he is Khumbongmayum Nando and one of the army personnel informed them that the arrested person is Nando who is said to be a member of PLA. They immediately intervened and told the army personnel that the person arrested by them is not Nando Singh but his brother Basanta. Thereafter, the army personnel set him free and they left the said house and proceeded towards the lane leading to the house of Ph.Sanajit Singh. Thereafter, P W.7 and others called out the other members of Meira Paibis of their locality. When they came back to the bazaar they found many other army personnel with about seven vehicles at Nongada bazaar. Thereafter, they saw the army personnel coming out with Pheiroijam Ibomcha Singh, PW.2 in their custody to the said bazaar. Thereafter, Ph.Sanajit (the petitioner's hate husband) was also taken out by the army personnel by holding around his neck, and he was wearing a 'khudei' only. P W.7 and other members of A Meira Paibi protested saying that they Snaj it, petitioner's husband and Ph.Ibomcha, PW.2) were cultivators and let them free. On their protest only Ph.Ibomcha, PW.2 was released but the petitioner's husband, Ph.Sanajit was taken in the vehicle of the army personnel and the vehicles proceeded towards Imphal along Imphal-Ukhrul road. Thereafter, Ph.Itocha Singh. PW. On their protest only Ph.Ibomcha, PW.2 was released but the petitioner's husband, Ph.Sanajit was taken in the vehicle of the army personnel and the vehicles proceeded towards Imphal along Imphal-Ukhrul road. Thereafter, Ph.Itocha Singh. PW. 1, elder brother of the deceased along with some of his family members came to the market shed and thereafter they proceeded towards Lamlai Police Station for lodging report of the incident. However, at the gate of the said Police Station, the sentry at the gate, did not allow to meet the O.C stating that the O.C already went to sleep. She was not shaken in the cross exam­ination. 16. Dr.Khangembam Pradipkumar Singh, PW.5 who conducted the post mortem examination clearly deposed that on 31.05.2004 at about 3.50 p.m. he conducted post mortem examination of one Ph.Sanajit Singh, 32 years, in connection with FTR No.42(5)2004 Sekmai P.S. On examination, the dead body was 5 ft and one inch in height, 52 kgs in weight; and dead body was wearing one long pant, zip half open blood stained; size of the long pant is much longer than the deceased and opined that the death was due to lacerated wound; laceration of the lungs diaphragm, intestine and kidney and fracture of skull bones resulting from multiple firearm injuries to the chest, abdomen and head. The injuries were antemortem and fresh at the time of death. 17. RW. 1, Hav. Ranabir Singh, stated that on 30.05.2004 at about 7 p.m. Major Girish Nair of their regiment informed him and other jawans numbering about 30 that they were going for an operation at general area Senjam Khunou and Senjam Chirang and that an ambush is to be laid. He further ordered them to immediately get ready for the said operation. At about 7.15 p.m. they left their camp on foot after necessary beiefing. There were two officers, two JCOs and 30 other ranks in the said party. Senjam Chirang area is located at a distance of about 4/5 Km. away from their camp and they took their position on the western side of the ambush spot. While they were laying ambush in the manner stated above at about 3.45 a.m. they saw a man entering the ambush area in a very suspicious manner. The said person was coming from the southern area, their party challenged him by shouting 'halt' (rooko) etc. While they were laying ambush in the manner stated above at about 3.45 a.m. they saw a man entering the ambush area in a very suspicious manner. The said person was coming from the southern area, their party challenged him by shouting 'halt' (rooko) etc. the said person refused to halt and instead he started to make firing upon them. Immediately they returned fire to the said person. Soon thereafter the man fell down on the ground located at the eastern side of the road. The said man felt down about 50 meters away from the road. The firing continued for about 2 minutes. RW.2 Sepoy Virpal Singh also made similar statement. RW3, Captain Rahul Bal Mishra simply deposed that he know about the incident which took place in the intervening night of 30th and 31 st May, 2004 at Senjam Chirang. He knew that a person died in an operation conducted by some army personnel of their unit. He was not in the said operation. The statement of RW.3 is only hearsay. 18. RWs-1 and 2 who are said to be members of the ambush party did not state that any arms and ammunitions were recovered from the alleged militant who was killed in the incident. They also did not state as to why the army column having more than 30 fully armed personnel required to shoot the lone militant coming to the ambush area for stopping him. 19. The learned District Judge, Manipur East in the report dated 31.07.2010 clearly made a finding that the testimonies of PWs were convincing and trustworthy than that o f RWs and also that the deceased Ph.Sanajit Singh was picked up from his house situated at Nongada Awang leikai by the personnel of the 19 Rajput Rifles (Bikaner) and the deceased, Ph.Sanajit Singh succumbed to bullet injuries fired by the personnel of 19 Rajput Rifles and the deceased had not succumbed to bullet injury in retaliatory fire at Senjam Chirang by the 19 Rajput Rifles. For coming to the above findings by the learned District Judge, Manipur East, in her report dated 31.07.2010 had discussed the statements of PWs, RWs and exhibited documents at paras 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the report, which read as follows: "20. For coming to the above findings by the learned District Judge, Manipur East, in her report dated 31.07.2010 had discussed the statements of PWs, RWs and exhibited documents at paras 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the report, which read as follows: "20. The testimony of the petitioner as PW No.3 about how her husband Pheiroijam Sanajit Singh has been dragged away from their bed and taken away from their house by the Army personnel of 19th Rajput Rifles is fully corroborated by the testimonies of other PW.No.1, elder brother of Sanajit Singh who has been made to sit in the courtyard along with the deceased Sanajait Singh after pulling out from his room and PW No.2 another elder brother of Sanajit Singh who has also been ordered to sit with victim Sanajit Singh in their courtyard after pulling out from his room and who has been taken upto the main road by the Army personnel on that particular night of May 30 and 31,2004 and has seen the Army personnel taking away his younger brother Pheiroijar Sanajit Singh in their army vehicle parked or the main road. PW.No.4 who is sister of the victim Pheiroijam Sanajit Singh has alsc supported the above testimony. The independent witness PW.No.7 who has been working as Cashier of Nongada Meira Paibi was at Nongada market shed along with other Meira Paibis at the relevant time has also witnesses the Army personnel apprehending PW.No.2, Ibomcha Singh elder brother of Pheiroijam Sanajit Singh and victim Sanajit Singh. She has clearly stated that inspite of their vehement protest the Army personnel have taken Pheiroijam Sanajit Singh into their vehicle but released PW.No.2. All these PWs No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 have seen Pheiroijam Sanajit Singh wearing only khudei (Manipuri Traditional loin cloth) bare foot and without any shirt taken away by the Army personnel on that particular night. This factum of the testimonies of the PWs are not shaken off by the defence. 21. Whereas the testimonies of the RWs state about laying ambush at Senjam Chirang general area in the intervening night of May 30 and 31,2004 on receipt of reliable information about movement of militants at the said area and after seeing one suspect individual the Army personnel shouted to halt. 21. Whereas the testimonies of the RWs state about laying ambush at Senjam Chirang general area in the intervening night of May 30 and 31,2004 on receipt of reliable information about movement of militants at the said area and after seeing one suspect individual the Army personnel shouted to halt. But instead of stopping he started firing towards them and in retaliation they also fired upon him who ran upto 50 metres and fell down. Later the said suspected individual has been identified to be Pheiroijam Sanajit Singh. R.Ws No.1 and 3 who were members of the operation group at Senjam Chirang on that particular night depose also about this defence theory. R.W.No.2 later on came there after getting information of the occurrence and witnesses seizure of arms and ammunitions alleged to be recovered from the possession of the deceased. However, these seized arms and ammunitions are not exhibited before the court. So, the theory of seizing the same is not considered to be essential regarding this case. 22. According to PW No.5, who is the Medical officer, the stature of the victim Sanajit Singh is 5 ft one inch of height and length between the hight point of iliac crest and heel is 34 inches and waist at the level of umbilicus is 29 inches. But the length of camouflage long pant worn by the deceased Sanajit Singh is of 43 inches and waist 34 inches. So, there is difference of 43-34=9 and 34-29-5 inches. It is not likely that a person who wears his pant will wear oversized long pant without hook at a difference of 9 inches oversize of his own height and 5 inches oversize of his own waist line: 34-29=5 inches. So, the theory of the petitioner that camouflage long pant has been put on the deceased Pheiroijam Sanajit Singh by the Army personnel after he has been shot dead is more convincing and trustworthy than that of the defence theory of killing the victim in the encounter at Senjam Chirang. 23. Besides, it is known fact that hunting boot marked No.42 and 08735 on its sole is not worn by any common man who buys shoes which have no marking of any number like No.41 and sole No.08735 from the shoe shop and wears the same. 23. Besides, it is known fact that hunting boot marked No.42 and 08735 on its sole is not worn by any common man who buys shoes which have no marking of any number like No.41 and sole No.08735 from the shoe shop and wears the same. The said hunting boot alleged to be worn by the deceased Sanaj it Singh must have been put on the deceased after the alleged incident by the Army personnel because it is in evidence of PWs that Pheiroijam Sanajit Singh has been apprehended by the Army personnel from his house bare foot and wearing only a Khudei (Manipuri traditional loin cloth). The plea of the petitioner regarding this point appears more trustworthy than that of the respondents. 24. Moreover, as regards the bullet entry wound of the deceased Pheiroijam Sanajit Singh it is in evidence that all bullet entry wounds on the dead body of Sanajit Singh are on the backside of his body and exit wounds are on the front side of his body. So, if the theory of the respondents about killing the deceased Sanajit Singh in encounter with the Army personnel at Senjam Chirang whereby the suspect Sanajit Singh has been alleged to have fired first upon the Army personnel after they shouted to halt meaning thereby that the deceased suspect Sanaj it Singh turning his face towards the Army personnel fired first and the Army personnel returned fire accordingly. So, if this theory of encounter between the suspect and the Army personnel is correct, some bullet entry wounds on the dead body of Ph.Sanajit Singh must have been at least in his front side of the body. But in the case of the deceased Sanajit Singh as all bullet entry injuries are on his back side of the body the pleas of the petitioner killing her husband Sanajit after arrest from their house is more probable theory than that of the respondents. It is also surprising how bullet injuries sustained on the dead body of Sanajit Singh are of red abraded collar base infer laterally. According to PW No.5, the Medical Officer, injuries were directed from back to front and from down to top and type of wound is rifle. So, there is probability that the deceased Sanajit Singh has been forced to put in his such a position that the bullet injuries were pumped down by the Army personnel. According to PW No.5, the Medical Officer, injuries were directed from back to front and from down to top and type of wound is rifle. So, there is probability that the deceased Sanajit Singh has been forced to put in his such a position that the bullet injuries were pumped down by the Army personnel. 25. The theory of the respondents that there are many groups of unlawful organizations and any group of organizations may have arrested the deceased victim and assigned him the duty and that due to urgency the victim may have worn big pant, big shoe to conceal something is not trustworthy. Besides, the submission of the Id. counsel for the respondents about not finding any evidence of breaking door, mentioning of different numbers of Army vehicles at the spot and non-mentioning of other PWs about threatening of the petitioner PW No.3 and non-production of Minister Parijat's son to support petitioner's case could not shake off the evidence of the petitioner. The difference of version of the PW No.2 and the PW No.1 about standing in the verandah, courtyard and dragging of PWs No.2 by the 2 persons while PW No. I says by one Manipur speaking person are minor discrepancies and these do not affect the case of the petitioner because the testimonies of the PWs No. 1,2,3,4 and 7 have deposed their statements about apprehending of the victim Sanajit Singh by the Army personnel corroborating with one another. After that in the morning a dead body of the bulled ridden victim Sanajit Singh was found in the RIMS morgue with the camouflage oversized long pant, oversized hunting boot and sleeveless T Shirt marked 'Bad Boy' whereas the victim Sanajit was picked up by the Army personnel wearing only a Khudei (Manipur loin cloth) and bare foot as testified by all the PWs No.3,2, 3,4 and 7 whose testimonies are more convincing than those of the RWs. It is not probable theory that a lone suspect who wears extra large long pant without hook or belt will open fire towards a large troop of array personnel armed with heavy arms instead of escaping from the spot. Investigating Officer, PW No.6 has investigated the case of the FIR CaseNo.61(6)04 Lamlai P.S. u/s 457/364/302/34 IPC and registered according to the complaint made by Ph.Itocha Singh. He has not recorded any statement of the Army personnel. Investigating Officer, PW No.6 has investigated the case of the FIR CaseNo.61(6)04 Lamlai P.S. u/s 457/364/302/34 IPC and registered according to the complaint made by Ph.Itocha Singh. He has not recorded any statement of the Army personnel. PW No.8 also investigated FIR Case No.42(5) 2004 Sekmai P.Su/s121/121-A/307TPC,13UA(P)Actand25 (1-B) Arms Act according to the report of Naik Subedar Surender Pal Singh of 19 Rajput (Bikaner). He conducted inquest over the dead body of Sanajit Singh and claims to have found the deceased possessing the carbine in his right hand while according to the evidence of R.W.No.3, alleged arms and ammunitions are already seized from the possession of the deceased before arrival of the Investigating Officer of FIR case of Sekmai P.S. Besides, there is no evidence of recovering of any empty cartridge in and around the place of occurrence. The main witness informant of FIR Case No.42(5)2004 Sek P.S.Surender Paul is not adduced as R.W to support the respondents' encounter theory and no explanation for his non-production is given by the respondents." In the result, the encounter theory of the respondents cannot be trusted while the pleas of the petitioner about apprehending her husband from their house at Senjam Chirang and finding him shot dead by the army personnel of 19th Rajput Rifles are cogent and reliable to book the culprits." 20. This Court (incidentally one of us -Justice T. Nandakumar Singh, is party) in Khumanthem Ongbi Pangabam Ningol Ibemhal Devi Vs. State of Manipur & Ors : 2006 (Suppl) GLT 265 (in para 8 of the GLT) held as follows: "8. Regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition, this court is of the considered view that it is not required to discuss time and again inasmuch as this court in a number of cases, viz: (1) 1995 (II) GLT 384: Shri Ranjan Gogoi Vrs Union of India 77 Ors. (2) 1999 (2) GLT 202: Shri Kangujam Ongbi Devi Vrs State of Manipur & Ors. (3)2003 (1) GLT 218: Terarongsen & Ors. Vrs Union of India & Ors. (4) 2001 (2) GLT 419: Tarulata Devi Vrs State of Assam & Ors and (5) 2005 (1) GLT 185: Kaisiliangmai (Th) Vrs Union of India and another cases, held that the writ petition of the present nature is maintainable. (3)2003 (1) GLT 218: Terarongsen & Ors. Vrs Union of India & Ors. (4) 2001 (2) GLT 419: Tarulata Devi Vrs State of Assam & Ors and (5) 2005 (1) GLT 185: Kaisiliangmai (Th) Vrs Union of India and another cases, held that the writ petition of the present nature is maintainable. For the sake of repetition, this court again repeats that for remedy in public law actions, the court can invoke "new tools" and would remedy to provide redressal in the case of deprivation of fundamental right like that under Article 21 of i the Constitution of India and also that award of compensation in proceedings for enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 32 and 226 is the remedy available in public law......." 21. The Apex Court in Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar: (1983) 4 SCC141 had considered the important question as to whether the Apex Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 can pass an order for payment of money as compensation for deprivation of fundamental rights; and answered the question, thus, awarding compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 by this Court or by the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution is a remedy available in public law, based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence in private law in an action based on tort. The ratio laid down in Rudul Sah's case (supra) was also followed in Bhim Singh Vs State of J&K: (1985) 4SCC677. 22. The Apex Court in Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa: (1993) 2 SCC 746 held that "the public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. The relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in proceedings under Article 32 by (the Supreme) Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts, for established infringement of the indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law and is based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen. The purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights. The purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights. Therefore, when the court moulds the relief by granting 'compensation' in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be understood as it is generally understood in a civil action for damages under the private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making 'monetary awards' under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty, of not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen. The compensation is in the nature of 'exemplary damages' awarded against the wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort. 23. It is now well settled that award of compensation is an appropriate and effective remedy for redress of an established infringement of a fundamental right under Article 21, of the Constitution of India. This court also considered some of the important cases wherein the Apex court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32 awarded compensation, i.e. D.K. Basu Vs. State of W.B : (1997) I SCC 416, Sube Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors : (2006) 3 SCC 178 . 24. The Apex Court in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal: (1997) 1 SCC 476 (para 9 and 22 of the SCC) held as follows: "9. The importance of affirmed rights of very human being need no emphasis and, therefore, to deter breaches thereof becomes a sacred duty of the Court, as the custodian and protector of the fundamental and the basic human rights of the citizens. State of West Bengal: (1997) 1 SCC 476 (para 9 and 22 of the SCC) held as follows: "9. The importance of affirmed rights of very human being need no emphasis and, therefore, to deter breaches thereof becomes a sacred duty of the Court, as the custodian and protector of the fundamental and the basic human rights of the citizens. Custodial violence, including torture and death in the lock ups, strikes a blow at the rule of law, which demands that the powers of the executive should not only be derived from law but also that the same should be limited by law. Custodial violence is a mater of concern. It is aggravated by the fact that it is committed by persons who are supposed to be the protectors of the citizens. It is committed under the shied of uniform and authority in the four walls of a police station or lock-up, the victim being totally helpless. The protection of an individual from torture and abuse by the police and other law-enforcing officers is a matter of deep concern in a free society. These petitions raise important issues concerning police powers, including whether monetary compen-sation should be awarded for established infringement of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The issues are fundamental. 22. Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilized society governed by the rule of law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected. We cannot wish away the problem. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. If the functionaries of the Government become law­breakers, it is bound to breed Issue notice calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why contempt proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Contempt of Court's Act, 1971 should not be initiated as prayed for; or why such further or other orders should for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself thereby leading to anarchanism. No civilized nation can permit that to happen. Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a policemen arrests him? No civilized nation can permit that to happen. Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a policemen arrests him? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest? These questions touch the spinal cord of human rights jurisprudence. The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic "No". The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials, detenus and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law". 25. The Apex Court in Sube Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors : (2006) 3 SCC 178 (para 31,32 and 34 of the SCC) held as follows: "31. Though illegal detention and custodial torture were recognized as violations of the fundamental rights of life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21, to begin with, only the following reliefs were being granted in the writ petitions under Article 32 or 226: (a) direction to set at liberty the person detained, if the complaint was one of illegal detention. (b) Direction to the Government concerned to hold an inquiry and lake action against the officers responsible for the violation. (c) If the enquiry or action taken by the department concerned was found to be not satisfactory, to direct an inquiry by an independent agency, usually the Central Bureau of Investigation. Award of compensation as a public law remedy for violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, in addition to the private law remedy under the law of torts was evolved in the last two-and-a-half decades. 32. In the Bhagalpur Blinding case [Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar: (1981) I SCC 627] Bhagwati, J. (as he then was), speaking for the Bench, posed the following question while considering the relief that could be given by a court for violation of constitutional rights guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution: (SCC p.630, para4) "[B]ut if life or personal liberty is violated otherwise than in accordance with such procedure, is the court helpless to grant relief to the person who has suffered such deprivation? Why should the court not be prepared to forge new tools and devise new remedies for the purpose of vindicating the most precious of precious fundamental right to life and personal liberty." The question was expanded in a subsequent order in Bhagalpur Blinding case [Khatri (IV) v. State of Bihar: (1981) 2 SCC 493 ] thus: (SCC p.504, para 7) "If an officer of the State acting in his official capacity threatens to deprive a person of his life or personal liberty without the authority of law, can such person not approach the court for injuncting the State from acting through such officer in violation of his fundamental right under Article 21? Can the State urge in defence in such a case that it is not infringing the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21, because the officer who is threatening to do so is acting outside the law and therefore beyond the scope of his authority and hence the State is not responsible for his action? Would this not make a mockery of Article 21 and reduce it to nullity, a mere rope of sand, for, on this view, if the officer is acting according to law there would ex conc-essionis be no breach of Article 21 and if he is acting without the authority of law, the State would be able to contend that it is not responsible for his action and therefore there is no violation of Article 21. So also if there is any threatened invasion by the State of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21, the petitioner who is aggrieved can move the court under Article 32 for a writ injunction such threatened invasion and if there is any continuing action of the State which is volatile of the fundamental right under Article 21, the petitioner can approach the Court under Article 32 and ask for a writ striking down the continuance of such action, but where the action taken by the State has already resulted in breach of the fundamental right under Article 21 by deprivation of some limb of the petitioner, would the petitioner have no remedy under Article 32 for breach of the fundamental right guaranteed to him? Would the court permit itself to become helpless spectator of the violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner by the State and tell the petitioner that though the Constitution has guaranteed the fundamental right to him and has also given him the fundamental right of moving the court for enforcement of his fundamental right, the court cannot give him any relief." 34. In Rudul Sah V. State of Bihar: (1983) 4 SCC 141 the petitioner therein approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution alleging that though he was acquitted by the Sessions Court on 3.6.1968, he was released from jail only on 6.10.1982, after 14 years, and sought compensation for his illegal detention. This court while recognizing that Article 32 cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations which can be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary processes of courts, civil and criminal, raised for consideration the important question as to whether in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, this Court can pass an order for payment of money, as compensation for the deprivation of a fundamental right. This court answered the question thus while awarding compensation: (SCC pp. 147-48, para 10) "Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its significant content if the power of this Court were limited to passing orders of release from illegal detention. One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the payment of monetary compensation. Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant infringement of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method open to the judiciary to adopt. The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield. If civilization is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's rights. If civilization is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's rights. It may have recourse against I hose officers." Rudul Shah v State of Bihar, (1982) 4 SCC 141 was followed in Bhim Singh v State of J&K: (1985) 4 SCC 677 and Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights v. Police Comnr : (1989) 4 SCC 730 ." 26. The Apex Court in Sube Singh's case (supra) held that degree of proof required in a criminal prosecution has been softened by the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court; in writ proceedings for compensation as public law remedy for violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Para 47 of the SCC in Sube Singh's case (supra) read as follows; "47...............The public law remedy is additionally available where the conditions mentioned in the earlier paragraph are satisfied. We may also note that this Court has softened the degree of proof required in criminal prosecution relating to such matters. In State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Teivedi: (1995) 4 SCC 262 , reiterated in Shakila Abdul Gafar KhanVs Vasant Raghunath Dhoble: (2003) 7 SCC 749 and Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P.: (2005) 9 SCC 631 , this Court observed: (SCC pp.272-73, paras 16-17) "[R]arely in cases of police torture or custodial death, direct ocular evidence of the complicity of the police personnel would be available, ...Bound as they are by the ties of brotherhood, it is not unknown that the police personnel prefer to remain silent and more often than not even pervert the truth to save their colleagues,..... ....The exaggerated adherence to and insistence upon the establishment of proof beyond every reasonable doubt, by the prosecution, ignoring the ground realities, the fact situations and the peculiar circumstances of a given case, ..., often results in miscarriage of justice and makes the justice-delivery system suspect. In the ultimate analysis the society suffers and a criminal gets encouraged. ....The exaggerated adherence to and insistence upon the establishment of proof beyond every reasonable doubt, by the prosecution, ignoring the ground realities, the fact situations and the peculiar circumstances of a given case, ..., often results in miscarriage of justice and makes the justice-delivery system suspect. In the ultimate analysis the society suffers and a criminal gets encouraged. Tortures in police custody, which of late are n the increase, receive encouragement by this type of an unrealistic approach of the courts because it reinforces the belief in the mind of the police that no harm would come to them, if an odd prisoner dies in the lock-up, because there would hardly be any evidence available of the prosecution to directly implicate them with the torture." 27. We are not sitting as an appellate authority of the report of the District Judge, Manipur East dated 31.07,2010. Keeping in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases discussed above, regarding softening of degree of proof required in criminal proceedings in a writ proceeding of the present nature, we have given our anxious considerations as to whether the finding of the learned District Judge, Manipur East, in her report is perverse or not; and we are of firm view, that the finding of learned District Judge, Manipur East in her report are, for the reasons discussed above, based on evidence, i.e., statements of witnesses and exhibited documents discussed above. 28. The points raised by respondent nos. 1 to 4 in their affidavit against the report of the learned District Judge, Manipur East dated 31.07.2010 are devoid of merit. We cannot persuade ourselves to accept the said objections of respondent Nos. 1 -4 which are not rationale. 29. Now the question is, what will be the quantum of compensation to be awarded for the death of Pheiroijam Sanajit Singh?; and from the evidence on the record it is clear that Pheiroijam Sanajit Singh was ayoung man aged about 32 years. This Court in Sagolsem Ongbl Latani Vs. Union of India & Ors : 2010 (4) GI7"(525had awarded a compen­sation of Rs.4 lakhs for the death of S.Vikram Singh, who was aged about 22 years after taking into consideration of the minimum wage of the unskilled workers at the relevant time for the State of Manipur which was Rs.80/-per day. This Court in Sagolsem Ongbl Latani Vs. Union of India & Ors : 2010 (4) GI7"(525had awarded a compen­sation of Rs.4 lakhs for the death of S.Vikram Singh, who was aged about 22 years after taking into consideration of the minimum wage of the unskilled workers at the relevant time for the State of Manipur which was Rs.80/-per day. As on today the minimum wage of the unskilled worker of State of Manipur and minimum wage of unskilled worker for different projects of Central Government in the State of Manipur are more than Rs. 1OO/-per day. 30. The Apex Court in a catena of cases held that even in the absence of evidence to show the earning of the deceased, the court has to apply some hypothesis, some guesses as well as human consideration in determining the quantum of compensation. Regarding this point, we may refer to the decisions of the Apex Court in Askwani Kumar Mishra Vs. P.Muniam Babu & Ors. : (1994) 4 SCC 22 and R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. : (1995)1 SCC 551 . We also take into consideration of the normal life span of a citizen of India, more particularly, the life span of the residents of Manipur, for calculating the amount of compensation and are of the considered view that the normal life span of the residents of the State of Manipur is about 70 years. We also take into consideration of the earlier judgments of this Court for awarding compensation in the cases similar in nature with the present case and are of the view that the appropriate amount of compensation would be Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs) for the death of Pheiroijam Sanajit Singh. Accordingly, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs) for the death of Pheiroijam Sanajit Singh to the petitioner i.e. wife of the deceased Pheiroijam Sanajit Singh within a period of five months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this amount of compensation is in addition to additional remedies available in civil courts and criminal courts. However, it is made clear that this amount of compensation is in addition to additional remedies available in civil courts and criminal courts. This order will not come in the way of the criminal court in awarding compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C and also will not come in the way of punishing the accused in the criminal proceedings/or other proceedings. 31. Further respondent Nos. 1-4 are to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- as fee for learned counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition within five months. For convenience of the parties, the above said amount of Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs) and the lawyer fee should be deposited by respondent Nos. 1 -4 within five months in the Registry of this Bench. In the event of depositing the said amount of Rs.5 lakhs, the Registry shall release the said amount to the petitioner with the condition that out of the said amount of compensation, Rs. 1,50,000/- should be deposited in the accounts of each of the two minor children namely, baby Pheiroijam Sanjita Devi and Master Pheiroijam Benjamin Singh in a scheduled bank by opening Bank Accounts, till the two minors attained majority. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed.