Amitava Roy, J.:- 1. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been sought to be invoked by the peti­tioner, the father of the deceased Inamul Haque Choudhury who died on 20.06.2000 allegedly while he was in the custody of the police of Lakhipur Police Station, District-Cachar. 2. Admittedly, before approaching this Court the petitioner with the same grievance had moved the Assam Human Rights Com­mission (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') which by its order dated 14.06.2006 rendered in AHRC Case No. 3451/2001 on accepting the report of the Superintendent of Police (Investigation) on the episode, returned a finding that the incident was not only one of fake police encounter but demonstrated as well gross negligence of duty on the part of the police in not providing full protection to the deceased persons (peti­tioner's son being one of them). The Com­mission thereby awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- each to the next of the kin of the deceased persons by way of interim compensation to be paid by the Home Department, Government of Assam. This amount has since been paid to the petitioner. 3. We have heard Mr. M. H. Rajbar­bhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Deka, learned State counsel for the respondents. 4. The pleaded case of the petitioner in short is that the deceased was arrested at Banskandi Bazar on 19.06.2000 by the po­lice of Lakhipur P.S. and was taken into cus­tody. He at the relevant point of time was a handyman of a TATA Tanker bearing regis­tration No. AS-11-6458 and was aged 20 years. Lakhipur P.S. Case No. 168/2000 under Section 365/392IPC was also regis­tered against him on a complaint made by one Faizur Rahman Laskar. According to the pe­titioner, in the night of 19.06.2000, police personnel from Lakhipur P.S. accusing his son to be a PULF activist took him to Sonai P.S. and in the early hours of 20.06.2000 to Panichowki near Bhuben Hill in a remote jun­gle area allegedly in search of the underground to locate their whereabouts/hideout. On the next date i.e. 21.06.2000 he was asked through Sonai P.S. to identify and receive the dead body of his son who they claimed had fallen to the bullets of the extremists at village Panichowki along with one Tamiz Uddin. 5. On the next date i.e. 21.06.2000 he was asked through Sonai P.S. to identify and receive the dead body of his son who they claimed had fallen to the bullets of the extremists at village Panichowki along with one Tamiz Uddin. 5. According to the petitioner, the plea of death ofhis son in the crossfire involving PULF extremists and the police is an afterthought and it was a case of brutal cold murder ofhis son by it (police) while the deceased was in its custody. To the same effect a Memoran­dum by the local people was submitted be­fore the jurisdictional District Magistrate which was followed by a magisterial enquiry by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S) Silchar, whereafter, a report was submitted by the aforementioned State authority before the District Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar to the ef­fect that both the deceased had succumbed to the bullet injuries while they were in the company of the police of Lakhipur P. S. in the locality of Panichowki R.H. and that there was no firing from the jungle or the extrem­ists' side resulting in the same (injuries). 6. On an FIR lodged on the incident, Sonai P.S. Case No. 234/2000 was registered in which on the culmination of the investigation, final report had been submitted. It is submit­ted at the Bar that the petitioner being dissat­isfied therewith has approached the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar for redress. The learned Commission, as re­ferred to hereinabove, on a consideration, amongst others, of the report of the magiste­rial enquiry, awarded an amount of Rs. 50, 000/- as interim compensation to the peti­tioner for the untimely demise of his son in the tragic circumstances as revealed therein. 7. The common stand taken by the Deputy Commissioner and the Superin-tendent of Police, Cachar, Silchar is that after his arrest the petitioner's son in course of the investiga­tion in the related case disclosed himself along with the accomplice also in the custody to be the members of PULF and offered to lead the police party to track them and locate their hideout. The answering respondents asserted that when the police party along with the pe­titioner's son and his companion reached the neighbourhood of Panichowki village under Sonari P.S., the extremists opened fire on them for which they (police) had to retaliate by return fire in self defence. The answering respondents asserted that when the police party along with the pe­titioner's son and his companion reached the neighbourhood of Panichowki village under Sonari P.S., the extremists opened fire on them for which they (police) had to retaliate by return fire in self defence. According to the respondents, the petitioner's son and his companion suffered bullet injuries to which they ultimately succumbed at the spot. They also referred to Sonai P.S. Case No. 227/2000 under Section 120(B)/121/121 (A)/307 IPC R/W Section 25(A)(a) Arms Act regis­tered on this incident in connection with which the police could make a haul of a number of fire arms, live cartridges and huge cache of other ammunitions. That Sonai P.S. Case No. 234/2000 under Section 302/34 IPC regis­tered on the FIR lodged by the petitioner in connection with demise of his son had ended in FIR was also referred to by them. They also admitted about the magisterial enquiry ordered by the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, and the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cachar on the com­pletion thereof. 8. In the additional affidavit, the petitioner has brought on record the order dated 14.06.2006, passed by the Commission in AHRC Case No. 3451/2010 awarding Rs. 50,000/- as interim compensation by accept­ing the findings in the magisterial enquiry. 9. Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan has argued that in the face of the categorical findings contained in the report submitted on the completion of the magisterial enquiry which demonstrably establish that the petitioner's son had been killed by the police without any provocation whatsoever, it being a clear case of gross vio­lation and abuse of the deceased's human rights, he as his father is entitled to adequate compensation in law. Referring to the deci­sions of the Apex Court in N. C. Dhoundial Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 579 and in Jaywant P. Sankpal Vs. Suman Gholap & Ors. (2010) 11 SCC 208 , the learned counsel has urged that the grant of interim compensation by the commission per se would not prohibit this Court from enhanc­ing the amount if the same is considered to be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Mr. Deka on the other hand has argued that as the Commission on a due con­sideration of the report in the magisterial en­quiry had deemed it fit to limit the amount of interim compensation to Rs. 10. Mr. Deka on the other hand has argued that as the Commission on a due con­sideration of the report in the magisterial en­quiry had deemed it fit to limit the amount of interim compensation to Rs. 50,000/-, the instant petition for enhancement thereof or for a fresh order of further amount of compensa­tion is not tenable. 11. The pleadings of the parties and the arguments advanced have received the due consideration of this Court. That on 19.06.2000, the petitioner's son had been arrested in connection with a police case by the Lakhipur police and that he had been taken into custody and remained as such till his bul­let ridden dead body was recovered, is a matter of record. It is also evident that imme­diately before his death he was in the com­pany of the police patrol party detailed by the Lakhipur police station. Whereas it is the version of the official respondents that the petitioner's son along with his companion had offered to lead the police party to search the hideout of PULF extremists and that in course of the said operation they were caught in the cross-fire resulting in their death, the report submitted by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cachar in the magisterial enquiry in its ulti­mate conclusion recorded as hereunder: "I personally visited the spot, watched the P.O. and the location of the houses of the vil­lagers. A shop was found very near to the P/O. The distance between premises of the Rest house and that of the shop would be hardly 30 meters. Other village peoples's houses also were at the distance of 60 meters only from the O.P. Panichowki is a mixed populated area where Hindu, Muslim, Bihari, Khasi people reside in the vicinity of the Rest House. I have asked most of the villagers who where found avail­able on the day of my spot enquiry on 5.11.2000 but one of them agreed with the police state­ment that there was any extremist firing on 20.6.2000. Firing was only from police side and due to police firing both the arrested persons died on the spot. From the statements and my field inspec­tion it further comes to light that both the per­sons were killed in the backside of the Rest House. In the back side, there is no way leading to any body's house or to the jungle. From the statements and my field inspec­tion it further comes to light that both the per­sons were killed in the backside of the Rest House. In the back side, there is no way leading to any body's house or to the jungle. So, here the question arises why the persons were shot dead behind the rest house.........So I reason­ably believe that firing took place behind the rest house where both the accused succumbed to the injuries also find reason to believe that there was no firing from jungle or extremist side and firing which took place at Panichowki in the early morning of 20.6.2000 was only from Police side." 12. Noticeably the report has remained unchallenged by the State respondents. Even in their affidavits adverted to hereinabove they have not in any manner criticized either the same or any finding recorded therein. No appeal by them questioning the order of the learned Commission has also been filed. In other words, in the above factual premise, not only the findings in the enquiry report have attained a finality, the decision of the learned Commission on the liability of the State re­spondents to pay interim compensation act­ing on the basis thereof has also become ab­solute to that extent. There is no overwhelm­ing material on record for this Court to take a view different from the one taken by the en­quiring authority in his report on an indepth evaluation of the attendant facts and circum­stances of the case bearing on the incident resulting in the hapless death of the petitioner's son. 13. Mr. Rajborbhuiyan in course of his arguments has submitted that the instant proceeding is essentially one seeking enhance­ment of the amount of compensation granted in the interim by the Commission. He has re­ferred to the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court to further reinforce this plea. Having regard to the materials on record, we are of the view that the relief claimed in the instant proceeding can be viewed to be one for enhancement of the amount of compensation granted by the Commission as it re­lates to the same incident. 14. Having regard to the materials on record, we are of the view that the relief claimed in the instant proceeding can be viewed to be one for enhancement of the amount of compensation granted by the Commission as it re­lates to the same incident. 14. As the petitioner's son at the relevant point of time was aged around 20/23 years and was engaged as a handyman and further as no proof of his nexus with the aforenamed extremist organization is forthcoming, we are of the opinion that in the factual background in which he met his death, the State of Assam would essentially be vicariously liable for the unconstitutional acts of its functionaries (here the police party of Lakhipur P.S.) judged on the touchstone of the realities of life, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to an enhanced amount of compensation which we on a modest estimate quantify at Rs. Three Lakhs as a whole. 15. We make it clear that the entitlement recorded herein, which is no longer res inte-gra, is in the form of a palliative and would not come in the way of the petitioner in seek­ing further reliefs under common law as avail­able to him. 16. The State respondents would release the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks herefrom. The amount would be deposited with the Regis­try of this Court in the form of a bank draft. 17. The petition stands allowed in the above terms. 18. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. Deka, learned State counsel so as to en­able him to do the needful in time. The parties would bear their own costs of the proceed­ing.