JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ. 1. This writ application has been filed praying for fixing responsibility on the officers who were responsible for causing death of the son of the petitioners in the fake encounter and also for payment of compensation. 2. The case of the petitioners is that their last son namely, Kh. Debeshower @ Pishak Singh was a matriculate and had also successfully completed carpentry training programme organized by the Community Polytechnic Society, Imphal sponsored by DRDA. His further case is that the said son(deceased) was once arrested on 16.12.2000 by the security personnel on allegation of being a Member of People's Liberation Army(PLA) and had also been detained under the National Security Act for the period from 4.1.2001 to 27.12.2001. After being released, he was staying at home and was leading a normal life. On 9.3.2004 at about 3.50 A.M. when the petitioner, the deceased, and other family members were sleeping, a group of 17 Assam Rifles entered into the house without any prior information and ransacked the house. The deceased son of the petitioners was taken out of his bed even without allowing him to change his dress. Thereafter, they blindfolded the deceased with a piece of cloth, tied his both hands at the back and hit him mercilessly with the bud of their guns. Even though the deceased cried of utter pain, no mercy was shown to him; and he was taken away in one of the two Gypsy vehicles in which the personnel of the 17 Assam Rifles had come. Thereafter, the petitioner and their family members contacted the local public leader to find out the whereabouts of the deceased and also lodged report in Irilbung Police Station. At about 4 PM of 10.3.2004 the petitioner learnt that a dead body has been left at the morgue of the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal by the personnel of Lilong P.S. on the ground that he had been killed in an encounter with the 17 Assam Rifles personnel. The petitioner identified the dead body of the deceased in the morgue. The petitioners, thereafter, filed a representation on 10.3.2004 before the Chief Minister of Manipur to take up appropriate legal action and on the basis of the said representation, the I.G. of Police (Intelligent), Manipur was directed to conduct an enquiry. However, there was no further progress and no enquiry was conducted. The petitioners, thereafter, filed a representation on 10.3.2004 before the Chief Minister of Manipur to take up appropriate legal action and on the basis of the said representation, the I.G. of Police (Intelligent), Manipur was directed to conduct an enquiry. However, there was no further progress and no enquiry was conducted. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed not only for fixing liability on the officers but also for payment of compensation. 3. A counter has been filed by the 17 Assam Rifles wherein the allegations made in the writ petition are denied. It is the stand of the said respondents that the deceased was a member of PLA and had earlier been arrested for getting himself involved in criminal activities and also had also been detained under the National Security Act. Even after being released, he continued to work for the said organization and was killed in an encounter. According to the said respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation since their deceased son died in an encounter while working for the banned organization, PLA. 4. Considering the stand taken by the petitioners as well as of the said respondents, Court vide order dated 16.8.2007 directed the learned District Judge, Manipur East to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. In compliance with the said direction, the learned District Judge, Manipur East has submitted a report dt 17.7.2012 specifically holding that there was no encounter as alleged by the 17 Assam Rifles and there was no exchange of fire. On the other hand, the deceased was killed in a fake encounter while he was in the custody of the personnel of 17 Assam rifles. 5. At the time of hearing of the writ petition, Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing for the Union of India wanted orders to be passed in two Misc. Applications filed by him. One of the Misc. Applications was for deleting the respondents-2 and 3 against whom no allegation has been made in the writ petition and accordingly it was directed to delete the respondents-2 and 3 from the cause title. The second Misc. Application was for impleading the Union of India represented through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi as party on the ground that in the event any compensation is directed to be paid, same is to be paid by the Ministry of Defence. The second Misc. Application was for impleading the Union of India represented through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi as party on the ground that in the event any compensation is directed to be paid, same is to be paid by the Ministry of Defence. Accordingly, the said application was also allowed and Union of India represented through Secretary, Ministry of Defence was made respondent No. 7. Since S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appears on behalf of the Union of India also represents the said department, no further notice was issued. 6. From the report, we find that on the basis of the stands taken by the petitioner as well as the respondents, the learned District Judge, Manipur East framed three issues, such as: 1. Whether the deceased Debeshower Singh was apprehended by 17 Assam Rifles on 9.3.2004; 2. whether he died while in custody of 17 Assam Rifles on 10.4.2004; 3. whether he died in an encounter and exchange of fire in the night of 9.3.2004 at Waithou Konjin. 7(seven) witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioners and several documents were also exhibited. On behalf of the 17 Assam Rifles, two witnesses were examined and two documents were also exhibited. 7. PW-1 is the brother of the deceased. He deposed before the learned District Judge in course of enquiry that on 9.3.2004 at about 3:50 AM he heard some noise while he was inside his house. He looked to the window which is situated on the backside of his house and used as Kitchen and saw the deceased being carried away by the personnel of Assam Rifles. The deceased was blindfolded and was only wearing a 'khudei' The personnel of 17 Assam Rifles had come in two Gypsy vehicles. At the relevant time the deceased was requesting them to let him change the dress. Thereafter, the family members and neighbour gathered in the official residence of the local M.L.A. and requested him to locate whereabouts of the deceased. This part of evidence of the PW-1, who is the brother of the deceased is also supported by another brother, PW-2. PW-3 is also another brother of the deceased who supported PWs-1 and 2. Thereafter, the family members and neighbour gathered in the official residence of the local M.L.A. and requested him to locate whereabouts of the deceased. This part of evidence of the PW-1, who is the brother of the deceased is also supported by another brother, PW-2. PW-3 is also another brother of the deceased who supported PWs-1 and 2. PW-4 is related to the family of the deceased and deposed that in the night of 9.3.2004 uniform personnel ransacked the house of the deceased and took away the deceased from his bed without even allowing him to change his dress. She has further stated that the uniformed personnel caught hold of the deceased by his hair and pulled him down on the ground and kicked him again and again. They also threatened the inmates of the house. Thereafter, they blindfolded the deceased with a cloth, tied his both hands at his back and pushed him out of the house. Thereafter, deceased was taken away in the vehicle in which the uniformed personnel had come. PW-5 is a neighbour who has also supported the case of the petitioner. PW-6 is the Officer before whom the information was lodged by the family members of the deceased and PW-7 is the Doctor who had conducted post mortem examination. Petitioner No. 1 examined herself as PW-8 and supported the evidence of all the witnesses. 8. Though two witnesses had been examined on behalf of the 17 Assam Rifles, both the witnesses are completely silent about the incident that took place in the house of the deceased. According to the said two witnesses, there was a firing incident which took place on 10.3.2004 at about 3.10-3.15 A.M. at the general area of Waithou and in the said cross firing one insurgent was killed. RW-2 is the Lt. Col. who deposed that on 10.3.2004 at about 12:30, he received information from one of his sources about movement of some PLA cadres in the general area of Waithou and immediately he called 25 jawans of his company for an operation. The jawans were led by one Subedar and left the Camp at about 1 AM in two Tata Trucks. He was supervising the operation over wireless. At about 3:40 AM he was informed that there was an encounter between them and some insurgents and one of the insurgents had been killed. 9. The jawans were led by one Subedar and left the Camp at about 1 AM in two Tata Trucks. He was supervising the operation over wireless. At about 3:40 AM he was informed that there was an encounter between them and some insurgents and one of the insurgents had been killed. 9. On careful examination of the evidence adduced from both sides, it appears that the first part of the incident which took place in the house of the deceased is not controverted in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, if the first part of the incident is accepted, it will be clear that in the night of 9.3.2004 the deceased was taken out from his house, beaten mercilessly and was carried away by the security personnel of 17 Assam Rifles in a Gypsy vehicle. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was found in the morgue. It was for the respondents to explain as to how the deceased died while he was in their custody. No such explanation has been given by the respondents and on the other hand, they have tried to make out a case of encounter. From the evidence of the Doctor, PW-7, who conducted the post mortem examination, it is found that the deceased had sustained bullet injuries and no explanation was coming forth from the side of the respondents as to how the deceased received bullet injuries while he was in their custody. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned District Judge, who conducted the enquiry, has rightly come to the conclusion that there was neither firing nor cross firing between the deceased and the personnel of 17 Assam Rifles. The deceased was killed while in custody of the security personnel of 17 Assam Rifles and a case of an encounter has been attempted to be established in course of the enquiry. 10. Though we are conscious of the fact that the deceased had earlier been arrested once and had already been detained under the National Security Act, under no stretch of imagination the Court can accept the stand taken by the respondents considering the overwhelming evidence available in course of the enquiry that the deceased was taken away from his house in the night when he was sleeping and was killed while he was in custody of the security personnel of 17 Assam Rifles. 11. 11. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioners are entitled to compensation. Considering the age of the deceased and kind of income he had, we are of the view that compensation of Rs. 5 lakh (Rupees five lakhs) will be just and proper. We accordingly direct the respondents-4 and 7 to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakh to the petitioners within a period of 6(six) months from the date of communication of this order.