JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ. 1. The petitioner is an organisation called "Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organisation" having its office in Thangal Bazar, Imphal. This P.I.L. has been filed for payment of compensation to the victims in relation to an incident which had taken place in 05.1.1997. It is alleged that on 5.1.1997, about 10.45 a.m., CRPF personnel who were armed with sophisticated and heavily loaded fire arms started ransacking entire Keibi Taretkhul village and it's outskirts by resorting to heavy firing for nearly one hour. Search operation was conducted from house to house in order to find a suspect who is said to have fled away after firing one or two shots at the CRPF personnel. In course of such door to door search, the CRPF personnel not only assaulted many of the villagers but also damaged their properties. As a result of such action of CRPF personnel, villagers deserted the village for many days. According to the petitioner, 55 villagers sustained bodily injuries and CRPF personnel destroyed properties of 39 villagers. The list of 55 villagers who received injuries in course of such operation and those 33 villagers whose properties were damaged or confiscated has been given in the writ petition. On these allegations, the PIL has been filed not only for payment of compensation to the injured persons but also to compensate the damages sustained by 33 villagers. 2. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have filed the counter affidavit. It's stated in the counter affidavit that on 5.1.1997, one platoon of CRPF was on road opening party duty on Sagolmang-Sawombung-Imphal Road. After conducting search on either side of the road and leaving one section each at vulnerable locations, the third section reached Taretkhul/Keibi area at about 10.40 in the morning. The said section while in the process of climbing the hill lock, were fired upon by some insurgents who were hiding in the bushes at about 10.45 a.m. The CRPF personnel also returned fire and in course of such firing one constable sustained serious bullet injury on his left thigh. The second section of CRPF who was stationed at about one and half kilometers from the place of occurrence rushed to the sport and re-enforcement was also called for. When search operation was conducted, few houses in Keibi village were found locked and nobody opened the lock in spite of request. The second section of CRPF who was stationed at about one and half kilometers from the place of occurrence rushed to the sport and re-enforcement was also called for. When search operation was conducted, few houses in Keibi village were found locked and nobody opened the lock in spite of request. The doors were forced open to check if any extremists were hiding therein or any arms were concealed in the house. During combing operation, 12 suspects were apprehended and subsequently handed over to the civil police for further investigation. The allegation with regard to allegation of bodily injuries to innocent civilians of the villages was denied in the counter affidavit. The said respondents also denied to have damaged the properties of the villagers. 3. In view of such allegation and counter allegation, the Court by an order dated 31.5.1999 directed the learned District & Sessions Judge, Manipur East to conduct an enquiry and submit the report. The learned District & Sessions Judge submitted the report on 3.7.2012 holding that during the search operation, CRPF personnel committed many excesses and illegality not only in the Keibi village but also adjoining areas. Many villagers were injured and some of them were incapable of performing normal duties. Injured persons had spent around Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- for their treatment. The learned District & Sessions Judge also found that properties of many of the villagers were destroyed by the CRPF personnel in course of search operation and loss caused to the villagers is about Rs. 3,16,152/-. The respondents 2-4 have filed an objection to the said report of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Manipur East. 4. Shri Kh. Chonjon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mostly placing reliance on report of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Manipur East submitted that the said report can be accepted and compensation to the injured persons be granted and compensation in respect of the properties damaged be also granted. Shri S. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2-4 objected to the report of the District & Sessions Judge stating that the evidence adduced on behalf of the CRPF was not considered by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Manipur East. Shri S. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2-4 objected to the report of the District & Sessions Judge stating that the evidence adduced on behalf of the CRPF was not considered by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Manipur East. The evidence adduced on behalf of the villagers is so inconsistent that finding of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Manipur East with regard to injuries sustained by some villagers, damages caused to the properties of the villagers cannot be sustained. 5. We have carefully perused the report which is around 61 pages. We find from the report that the learned District & Sessions Judge framed 4(four) issues and in order to establish the claim, the villagers examined 10 witnesses and 4(four) witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents. 6. In relation to issue No. 1, learned District & Sessions Judge came to a conclusion that on 5.1.1997 at about 10.45am, there was an encounter at Laijing Shiv Mahade Hill Lock in between unknown insurgents and CRPF personnel and the respondents also established that one personnel namely, Bhupender Singh, a young constable sustained serious bullet injury in his left thigh. In relation to rest of the 3 issues, learned District & Sessions Judge analysed the evidence adduced from both sides and came to a conclusion that evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the villagers is more convincing than that of the evidence of witnesses on behalf of the C.R.P.F. personnel. The submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is that the evidence adduced on behalf of the CRPF had not been considered. In paragraph 31 of the report of learned District & Sessions Judge has observed that out of 4 witnesses examined on behalf of the CRPF, RW-1 accompanied the injured constable to J.N. Hospital and he was not involved in such operation. Similarly, RW-2, after arrival of the re-enforcement stayed in the place of occurrence and did not participate in the search operation. RW-3 led the second party and his team and proceeded to southern side of Iril river and consequently, did participate in the search operation. RW-4 also proceeded to northern side of hill lock and did not participate in the search operation. RW-3 led the second party and his team and proceeded to southern side of Iril river and consequently, did participate in the search operation. RW-4 also proceeded to northern side of hill lock and did not participate in the search operation. As against such evidence, 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the villagers out of whom PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 consistently stated that on the date of incident, the CRPF personnel being heavily armed made door to door search in order to apprehend the suspects and in course of such search, they assaulted some of the villagers and also destroyed properties of some of the villagers. Two of the witnesses further stated that some of the injured persons had to spend Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- for their treatment. In view of such consistent evidence of the above witnesses, learned District & Sessions Judge, Manipur East came to a finding that CRPF personnel committed many excesses in course of such search operation and injured some of the villagers and also destroyed properties of some of the villagers. Though the learned District & Sessions Judge has not recommended for payment of compensation in his report, he has made an observation that some of the injured persons had to spend Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- for their treatment. This observation of the learned District & Sessions Judge is based on the evidence adduced in course of the proceeding. However, we are unable to accept such evidence of the witnesses considering the nature injuries sustained by the villagers as mentioned in the list of injured persons. Only two villagers namely Shri S. Biren Singh and Shri H. Maimu Singh sustained fractures whereas, the other injured persons sustained only brushes and nature of such injuries is simple. We are therefore, of the view that evidence of witnesses to the extent that injured persons had to spend Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- towards their treatment is not acceptable except in respect of two injured persons who sustained fractures. However, evidence with regard to damages caused to the property is acceptable and in the list, names of persons whose properties were damaged, value of damages have also been mentioned. 7. We, therefore, accept the report of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Manipur East and direct the respondents 2-4 to pay compensation of Rs. However, evidence with regard to damages caused to the property is acceptable and in the list, names of persons whose properties were damaged, value of damages have also been mentioned. 7. We, therefore, accept the report of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Manipur East and direct the respondents 2-4 to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to Shri S. Biren Singh and Shri H. Maimu Singh whose names appear at serial No. 14 and 23 of the list for the injury sustained by them. It is further directed that sum of Rs. 3,16,152/- be also paid to the villagers as per the list of 33 villagers taking into consideration the damage sustained by them against each serial number. The compensation be paid within 4 (four) months from the date of communication of this order. 8. The Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the above extent.