Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 30 (MAN)

Mannuamching Zou v. Union of India

2014-04-01

LAXMI KANTA MOHAPATRA

body2014
JUDGMENT L.K. Mohapatra, Actg. C.J. This is a very unfortunate case in which the petitioner has prayed for payment of compensation due to the death of 3(three) of her family members in a cross-firing between the BSF Personnel and the underground outfits and also for payment of compensation for her son, who was seriously injured by such cross-firing. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition praying for compensation are as follows: 1.1. In the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd April, 2002, a BSF column was patrolling in Sugnu. There is a culvert in between Launching and Sugnu. Suspecting that some underground activists were in a vehicle near the said culvert, the BSF personnel wanted to search the area. In the course of such search, the underground activists opened fire on the BSF Personnel and consequently the BSF Personnel also returned fire. In course of such cross-firing, the family members of the petitioner who were sleeping sustained bullet injuries. The husband of the petitioner and two daughters succumbed to the injuries; whereas, the son of the petitioner who also sustained injury, survived. 1.2. The State Government paid ex-gratia to the petitioner for the death of her husband and two daughters but not being satisfied with the quantum of ex-gratia paid by the State Government, this writ application has been filed claiming compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs) for the death of the petitioner’s husband and two daughters and further, a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) for the injured son. 3. Notice was issued in the writ application on 23.08.2002 and by an order dated 4.6.2004, the Court considered it fit to direct a judicial inquiry to be conducted by a responsible Judicial Officer in order to ascertain the fact situation alleged in the writ petition and accordingly directed the learned District and Sessions Judge, Manipur West to conduct an inquiry and submit the report. 2.1. In compliance of the said order passed by the Court, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Manipur West submitted his report on 31st May, 2008. The relevant part of the report is quoted below: 7. 2.1. In compliance of the said order passed by the Court, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Manipur West submitted his report on 31st May, 2008. The relevant part of the report is quoted below: 7. In the light of the above findings there appears reasonable proof that the death of the deceased namely Manglianthang, Mandeinou and Niangjamang in the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd April, 2002 at Sugnu is due to the cross-firing between the insurgents and the BSF Personnel of BSF Post Sugnu. Accordingly this inquiry report is submitted. 3. As is evident from the report there was a cross-firing between the BSF Personnel and underground outfits resulting in the death of the husband and two daughters of the petitioner and injury to the son. However, during the inquiry it was not possible to find out as to whether the death occurred due to the bullets fired by the BSF Personnel or the bullets fired by the underground outfits. Under these circumstances the question that comes up for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the death of her husband and two daughters and injured son in course of cross-firing between the BSF Personnel and the underground outfits. In the case of Giribala Das-vrs-Union of India & Ors, reported in 2007 (1) GLT 1, compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs had been awarded in case of such death. In the said reported case, on 24.8.1999 at about 5 AM, the husband of the petitioner in the said writ petition had gone to answer the calls of nature in the open area at a distance of a few feet away from his residential house. All of a sudden, Army personnel fired on him as a result of which he sustained grievous injury resulting in his death. The post mortem report clearly revealed that the husband of the petitioner therein sustained injury caused by fired arm and death was on account of the same. The Court on consideration of such facts allowed compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. In the case of Hiren Ch. Ray-vrs-Union of India, reported in 2003 (2) GLT 238, the Court also granted Rs. The post mortem report clearly revealed that the husband of the petitioner therein sustained injury caused by fired arm and death was on account of the same. The Court on consideration of such facts allowed compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. In the case of Hiren Ch. Ray-vrs-Union of India, reported in 2003 (2) GLT 238, the Court also granted Rs. 1.00 lakhs compensation considering the fact that the detenu while in army custody was caught in a cross-fire between Army and the extremists and evidence placed before the Court showed that the deceased did not contribute to his own death by any action of him. In the case of Simkari Huika - Vrs-State of Orissa & Ors, in W.P.(Cril.) No. 379 of 2011, the Court granted compensation of Rs. 4.00 lakhs and this is a case where death took place due to the cross-fire and the deceased did not contribute anything to cause his own death. Several judgments of the Apex Court were also taken note in the said judgment while granting compensation. 4. Ms. H. Bisheshwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner referring to the above judgments submitted that the petitioner having lost her husband and two daughters while sleeping in the night due to such cross-firing between the BSF Personnel and the underground outfits is entitled to compensation as prayed for. She, further, submitted that since the son of the petitioner also sustained injury by such cross-firing further compensation as prayed for should also be allowed. 4.1. Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Sr. GA appearing for the State respondents submitted that the petitioner having been paid ex-gratia, she is no more entitled further compensation and the State cannot be directed to pay compensation when there is no evidence to show that any of the State Police was involved in the operation. Mr. C. Komol, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the BSF submitted that there being no finding of the District Judge that the death occurred due to the bullets fired by the BSF Personnel, the BSF cannot be held responsible for payment of compensation. 5. The claim of the petitioner that her husband and two daughters were killed because of the bullet injury sustained in the course of cross-firing between the BSF Personnel and the underground outfits is born out from the report of the District Judge. 5. The claim of the petitioner that her husband and two daughters were killed because of the bullet injury sustained in the course of cross-firing between the BSF Personnel and the underground outfits is born out from the report of the District Judge. It is also born out from the report of the District Judge that the son of the petitioner also sustained injuries in course of such cross firing. There is no material whatsoever on record or in the enquiry report to show that the husband and two daughters of the petitioner or her son had any contribution in sustaining such injuries. On the other hand, it appears that they were sleeping in the night in their house when they sustained injuries because of such cross-firing. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to compensation for unfortunate death of her husband and two daughters and also for the injuries sustained by her son. The question as to who will pay the compensation is to be decided in the light of the submission made on behalf of the State respondents as well as the BSF. It was contended by the learned Sr. GA that in the above operation the State Police was not involved and therefore the State Government cannot be directed to pay compensation. It was contended by Mr. C. Komol, learned CGSC appearing for the BSF that in the absence of any finding as to whether the deceased persons and injured son had sustained injuries on account of the bullets fired by the BSF Personnel, the BSF also cannot be saddled with the liability of payment of compensation. 6.1. There is nothing on record or in the report to show that the State Police was involved in the operation. It is the BSF Personnel and the underground outfits, who were at both ends of firing and in course of such cross-firing, the three deceased persons and injured son who were sleeping in their house, sustained bullet injuries. Though the inquiry is silent as to bullets fired by whom caused injuries to the deceased persons and injured son, the undisputed fact is that all the three deceased persons and injured son sustained bullet injuries in course of the cross-firing between the BSF Personnel and the underground outfits and they had no contribution for sustaining such injuries. Though the inquiry is silent as to bullets fired by whom caused injuries to the deceased persons and injured son, the undisputed fact is that all the three deceased persons and injured son sustained bullet injuries in course of the cross-firing between the BSF Personnel and the underground outfits and they had no contribution for sustaining such injuries. I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the State that the State Police not being involved in the operation no compensation can be awarded against the State. The BSF has been deputed in the State to control insurgency and in course of such operation if any such unfortunate incident takes place, the State cannot wash its hands off saying that the State Police was not involved in the operation. 5.2. Relying on the judgments cited earlier as well as on consideration of the report of the learned District Judge and in view of the reasons assigned earlier, I allow the writ application and direct that the respondents shall pay compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs for each deceased person and further sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh as compensation for the injuries sustained by the son of the petitioner. In total respondents shall pay compensation of Rs. 7.00 lakhs (Rupees seven lakhs) to the petitioner for the death of her husband and two daughters and also for the injury sustained by her son. Out of the total compensation directed to be paid, fifty percent shall be paid by the respondents 1-4 and the balance 50% shall be paid by the State respondents. This compensation be paid to the petitioner within 3(three) months from the date of communication of this order. The writ application is accordingly allowed to the above extent.