Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 14 (GAU)

Malati Das v. State of Assam

2016-01-07

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr., learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Deka, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. None has appeared for respondent Nos. 6 & 7 though served. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents for handing over investigation of Tinsukia PS Case No. 296/2014 to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and further seeks a direction for payment of adequate compensation to the family of deceased Kartik Das. 3. Facts of the case may be briefly noted at the outset. 4. Petitioner is the sister of deceased Kartik Das, a resident of Guijan, in the district of Tinsukia, Assam. It is stated that Kartik Das was a socially active person and was involved in various social activities in Tinsukia district. On 15.04.2014 at about 9.30 p.m. Kartik Das and a few others had gone to the Guijan Police Out Post, which is under Tinsukia Police Station, to lodge one First Information Report regarding an incident of assault on the brother of one of the persons whom he had accompanied to the Police Out Post. However, the Officer In-charge of the Guijan Police Out Post refused to register the first information. It is stated that the said Officer In-charge (respondent No. 6) was not in his uniform at that time and misbehaved with Kartik Das and the team. They were asked to re-write the First Information Report through the Secretary of the Village Defence Party. At that stage, other members of the group left the Police Out Post to get the first information re-drafted as suggested while Kartik Das remained seated inside the Police Out Post waiting for their return. 5. When the other persons came back to the Police Out Post, they found the gate of the Police Out Post closed and they were not allowed to enter into the premises. The Officer In-charge was standing at the gate, this time, in uniform and received the re-drafted first information from the group assuring them that he would investigate the matter. When he was queried about Kartik Das, he told the group that Kartik Das had already left the Police Out Post. Believing the version of the Officer In-charge, the group returned back from the Police Out Post. 6. When he was queried about Kartik Das, he told the group that Kartik Das had already left the Police Out Post. Believing the version of the Officer In-charge, the group returned back from the Police Out Post. 6. Later on, petitioner could learn that her brother Kartik Das was killed by police Constable, Sri Thaneswar Phukan (respondent No. 7) inside the Guijan Police Out Post in presence of all police personnel, including the Officer In-charge on 15.04.2014 itself and that he had wrongly and deliberately misinformed the group that Kartik Das had left the Police Out Post when Kartik Das was already dead. 7. It is stated that when the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid development in the dead of night (01.00 a.m.) she along with the family members rushed to the Guijan Police Out Post. They found the Police Out Post being surrounded by a large number of police personnel, including high police officials and they were not allowed entry into the Police Out Post. There petitioner could learn that her brother was taken to the Tinsukia Civil Hospital where also she and other family members were restrained from entering into. However, petitioner noticed police personnel wiping blood stains from the floor of the hospital. 8. On 16.04.2014, petitioner lodged First Information Report before the Superintendent of Police, Tinsukia regarding killing of her brother Kartik Das by police Constable Sri Thaneswar Phukan (respondent No. 7) in the presence of the Officer In-charge Sri Mohan Sena Singha (respondent No. 6) of Guijan Police Out Post. The first information was treated as FIR and on the basis of the same, Tinsukia Police Station Case No. 296/2014, under sections 342/302/201/34 IPC read with section 27(1) of the Arms Act was registered. It is stated that the first information had to be lodged by the petitioner as the deceased was a bachelor and was survived by his old and ailing mother. 9. It is further stated that subsequently, from the footage of CC TV camera installed in the Tinsukia Civil Hospital and from a perusal of the General Casualty Register of the said hospital, it could be known that dead body of Kartik Das was taken to the Tinsukia Civil Hospital as an unknown dead body who was declared dead on arrival in the hospital. The footage also disclosed bringing of the dead body of Kartik Das to Tinsukia Civil Hospital by a police jeep escorted by one police Constable, which was examined by a doctor of the hospital and thereafter the dead body was taken out from the hospital premises by hospital ambulance. The CC TV footage showed the hospital authority washing away the blood stains from the hospital floor. During this period, several police personnel were seen visiting the hospital premises. Three police personnel came to the doctor's chamber bringing with them one police person for examination by the doctor. 10. Postmortem examination on the dead body of Kartik Das was carried out on 16.04.2014 and as per postmortem report, death was caused due to bullet injury received from a rifle. Inquest report also revealed a hole measuring 1½ inches over the left side of the chest of Kartik Das with a hole of equivalent size on the right side of his back. According to the Executive Magistrate, who conducted the inquest, the bullet fired upon had entered from the front side of the chest of the person of Kartik Das and exited through the back side. 11. Though investigation into the Tinsukia PS Case No. 296/2014 was carried out, petitioner has expressed her apprehension that no fair investigation would be possible since accused persons belong to the same police station. Stating that petitioner's brother was killed in cold blood inside the police station without any rhyme or reason, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 12. An additional-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner wherein, it is stated that Govt. of Assam in the Revenue and Disaster Management Department had sanctioned a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs on 30.10.2014 as ex-gratia payment to the mother of the deceased (also mother of the petitioner). A cheque for the aforesaid amount was thereafter handed over to the mother by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia on 10.12.2014. It is stated that the deceased was 30 years of age at the time of his death and was killed inside the Police Out Post without any provocation. 13. Respondent No. 4 i.e., Superintendent of Police, Tinsukia has filed affidavit through Jagat Ch. Gogoi, Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is stated that the deceased was 30 years of age at the time of his death and was killed inside the Police Out Post without any provocation. 13. Respondent No. 4 i.e., Superintendent of Police, Tinsukia has filed affidavit through Jagat Ch. Gogoi, Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is stated that on receipt of FIR from the petitioner, Tinsukia PS Case No. 296/2014 was registered and considering the serious nature of the allegation, three police officials, two in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and one Sub-Inspector of Police were appointed as Investigating Officers. It is stated that in the course of investigation, Investigating Officers visited the place of occurrence. It was found during investigation that the deceased was talking with the in-charge of the Police Outpost at the relevant point of time. The in-charge was sitting across the table. At that point of time, Constable/97/Thaneswar Phukan fired from his service rifle from a distance of about 3'/4' causing injuries on the person of Kartik Das who fell down from the chair where he was sitting. The fired bullet pierced through the body of Kartik Das and hit the western side wall of the room. The injured body of Kartik Das was immediately sent to the Tinsukia Civil Hospital where the Medical Officer declared him dead. In the course of the investigation, Investigating Officers examined and recorded the statements of 16 witnesses and made several seizures, including the rifle from where the bullet was fired. It is stated that investigation was being carried out impartially and that charge sheet would be filed shortly before the appropriate Court. 14. On 07.08.2015, this Court had passed the following order:- "This petition relates to Tinsukia PS Case No. 296 of 2014, under Sections 342/302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with 27(1) of Arms Act, in which informant had alleged cold-blooded killing of her brother inside Guijan Police Outpost, which is under Tinsukia Police Station. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tinsukia, has filed affidavit. In the said affidavit, it is admitted that one Constable Thaneswar Phukan had fired from his service rifle, which led to the death of the deceased inside the Police Outpost. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tinsukia, has filed affidavit. In the said affidavit, it is admitted that one Constable Thaneswar Phukan had fired from his service rifle, which led to the death of the deceased inside the Police Outpost. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was killed inside the police station, Court would like to know from the Superintendent of Police, Tinsukia about the stage of investigation in the criminal case, including detention of any person, and the administrative steps taken against officials of Guijan Police Outpost and Tinsukia Police Station. Superintendent of Police shall be present in Court in person at 10:30 am, on 25.08.2015." 15. On 25.08.2015, Sri. Mugdha Jyoti Deb Mahanta, Superintendent of Police, Tinsukia was present in person. Statement made by Sri Mahanta and the order passed by this Court on that day are as under:- "Mr. Mahanta submits that in connection with the aforesaid case, Constable Thaneswar Phukan was arrested but he is now on bail. Investigation into Tinsukia PS Case No. 296 of 2014 has been completed, where-after, charge-sheet has been submitted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on 18.08.2015 against accused Constable Thaneswar Phukan. Prior to submission of charge-sheet, prosecution sanction was also obtained. He further submits that administrative steps were taken against SI (UB) Mohan Sena Sinha, the In-Charge of Guijan Outpost as well as Constable Thaneswar Phukan. Sri Sinha was placed under suspension on 16.04.2014. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. On receipt of the enquiry report and after hearing the delinquent Mohan Sena Sinha, he was found guilty of the charge of gross negligence, misconduct and dereliction of duty. He has been awarded penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, where-after, departmental proceeding has been closed. In respect of Constable Thaneswar Phukan, he was also placed under suspension on 16.04.2014 and departmental proceeding was drawn up against him on similar charges. Ultimately, he was found guilty of the charges and consequently, penalty of stoppage of 3 (three) annual increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on him. Superintendent of Police has further informed the Court that an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs) was sanctioned to the mother of Late Kartik Das as ex-gratia payment. Ultimately, he was found guilty of the charges and consequently, penalty of stoppage of 3 (three) annual increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on him. Superintendent of Police has further informed the Court that an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs) was sanctioned to the mother of Late Kartik Das as ex-gratia payment. While the criminal trial against Constable Thaneswar Phukan will take its own course, Court is, however, of the prima facie view that the penalties imposed on both Sri Mohan Sena Sinha and Sri Thaneswar Phukan following departmental proceeding are clearly inadequate considering the gravity of the charges, which have been proved in the enquiry. However, before proceeding further, Court is of the view that the following documents should be furnished to the Court by the Superintendent of Police through the Government Advocate in both the cases, i.e. in the case of Sri Mohan Sena Sinha and Sri Thaneswar Phukan:- (1) Copy of Enquiry Report. (2) Response of the delinquent to the findings of the Enquiry Officer. (3) Order of Penalty. The aforesaid documents shall be placed before the Court on the next date. In the meanwhile, personal appearance of Sri Mugdha Jyoti Dev Mahanta is dispensed with." 16. Thereafter, an affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 enclosing therewith the documents in terms of the order dated 25.08.2015. Finally on 09.12.2015, Mr. P.S. Deka, learned Govt. Advocate produced before the Court a copy of charge sheet submitted by the police before the Court in connection with Tinsukia PS Case No. 296/2014. 17. From the facts as narrated above, it is more than evident that petitioner's brother was killed inside the Guijan Police Outpost by a police man. Petitioner's brother had gone to the Police Outpost for registration of a First Information Report relating to an incident of assault on one of the village youngsters. As noticed above, the police personnel led by respondent No. 6 initially did not accept the first information and had asked the group to re-draft the first information through the Secretary of the Village Defence Party and thereafter to submit the same. While the group went back from the Police Outpost, petitioner's brother stayed back waiting for the group to return. While the group went back from the Police Outpost, petitioner's brother stayed back waiting for the group to return. The records produced before the Court discloses that respondent No. 7 was in an intoxicated state and was agitated because of petitioner's brother and the group coming to the Police Outpost for registration of a criminal case during the festive season. His behaviour was found to be aggressive and ultimately, he fired upon from his service rifle in presence of his superior, respondent No. 6. Materials on record disclose that petitioner's brother who suffered bullet injury was thereafter taken to the Tinsukia Civil Hospital where he was declared dead. This fact was known to respondent No. 6. Instead of disclosing this information to the family members or to the villagers, respondent No. 6 closed the gate of the Police Outpost and when the group returned with the re-drafted first information, he accepted the same at the gate itself and on query told the group that petitioner's brother had left the Police Outpost. This was a blatant lie told by respondent No. 6, who knew and in-fact was an eye-witness to the killing of petitioner's brother inside the Police Outpost. 18. Though prayer made in the writ petition is for handing over investigation of Tinsukia PS Case No. 296/2014 to the CBI and for payment of adequate compensation to the family members of the deceased, Court is of the view that in a case of this nature, Court can certainly mould the relief to advance the cause of justice. In-fact, in the order dated 09.12.2015, it was noted that having regard to the pleadings and the materials on record, Court is primarily concerned with three aspects, namely, (i) investigation into Tinsukia PS Case No. 296/2014, (ii) departmental proceeding and penalty imposed on the erring officials in connection with the death of petitioner's brother inside the police station and (iii) adequacy of compensation granted to the family of the deceased. 19. Coming to the first aspect, it is seen from the documents placed on record that Tinsukia Police had completed the investigation into Tinsukia PS Case No. 296/2014 and thereafter submitted charge sheet being charge-sheet No. 381, dated 18.08.2015 before the appropriate Court at Tinsukia. In the charge sheet, respondent No. 7 has been sent up to face trial having been charged with committing an offence under section 302 IPC. In the charge sheet, respondent No. 7 has been sent up to face trial having been charged with committing an offence under section 302 IPC. It is also stated that sanction for prosecution of respondent No. 7 has been obtained. Since Tinsukia Police had completed the investigation and had submitted the charge sheet naming respondent No. 7 as the accused, Court is of the view that at this stage, it may not be proper to direct handing over of the investigation to CBI; rather it may be counter-productive in so far family members of the deceased are concerned. In so far, criminal prosecution is concerned, matter is now before the Court. Whether only respondent No. 7 is culpable or whether any other member of the police force were responsible for the death of the deceased or responsible for destruction of evidence is a matter which may be looked into by the criminal court in the course of the trial. Adequate provisions are available in the Criminal Procedure Code empowering the criminal court to bring to justice any other persons if it feels needs be arrayed as accused. It is expected that the criminal court at Tinsukia will fast track the trial and complete the same expeditiously. 20. In so far the departmental proceedings against the erring officials are concerned, it is already noticed in the order dated 25.08.2015 that separate departmental proceedings were drawn up against respondent Nos. 6 & 7 and following the departmental proceedings both of them were found to be guilty of the charges framed against them. It is seen that the said respondents did not contest the findings of the Inquiry Officer. As a matter of fact, respondent No. 7 stated that he had no objection to any punishment that may be meted out to him. Shockingly, respondent No. 4 in the first order dated 16.07.2014 after holding respondent No. 6 i.e., Sri Mohan Sena Singha, In-charge of the Guijan Police Out Post guilty, awarded him the penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. Order dated 16.07.2014 reads as under: - "ORDER Reference D.O. No. 1730 dated 24.05.2014 and this office Memo No. TDP/RD/14/4082 dated 20.04.2014 the Departmental Proceeding No. 02/2014 drawn up against SI (UB) Mohan Sena Sinha of Tinsukia DEF. I have gone through the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Also heard the delinquent in person. Order dated 16.07.2014 reads as under: - "ORDER Reference D.O. No. 1730 dated 24.05.2014 and this office Memo No. TDP/RD/14/4082 dated 20.04.2014 the Departmental Proceeding No. 02/2014 drawn up against SI (UB) Mohan Sena Sinha of Tinsukia DEF. I have gone through the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Also heard the delinquent in person. SI (UB) Mohan Sena Sinha, as I/C of the Outpost is responsible for maintenance of discipline in the Outpost, but he did not check that the sentry who was carrying a weapon was under influence of liquor. He also failed to appreciate the situation and could not prevent the killing of a civilian inside the Out Post. Therefore, SI (UB) Mohan Sena Sinha is awarded with stoppage of 01 (one) increment without cumulative effect. The D/P is disposed of accordingly. RO will take follow up action." 21. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order would show that respondent No. 6 being in-charge of the Out Post was responsible for maintenance of discipline in the said Out Post. The order discloses that respondent No. 6 failed to restrain the sentry (respondent No. 7) who was under the influence of liquor and was carrying a fire arm and thus could not prevent killing of a civilian inside the Out Post. 22. I am afraid, the approach adopted by respondent No. 4 is totally inadequate and reflects gross insensitivity to a most heinous offence committed within the premises of a police station by a policeman. The penalty imposed on respondent No. 6 is clearly inadequate having regard to the gravity of the misconduct and requires reconsideration. 23. If that is not enough, respondent No. 4 passed order dated 28.08.2015 on the departmental proceeding drawn up against respondent No. 7. After agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, who held respondent No. 7 guilty of all the charges, he imposed the penalty of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. Suspension was revoked and it was stated that period of suspension would be regularised on receipt of court's judgment. Order dated 28.08.2015 reads as under:- "ORDER DP File No. 01/2014 drawn up against delinquent UBC/97 Thaneswar Phukan has been received from the enquiry officer Sri Lamhao Doungei, APS, Supdt. of Police, (HQ) Tinsukia. I have gone through the D/P file along with the findings submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Order dated 28.08.2015 reads as under:- "ORDER DP File No. 01/2014 drawn up against delinquent UBC/97 Thaneswar Phukan has been received from the enquiry officer Sri Lamhao Doungei, APS, Supdt. of Police, (HQ) Tinsukia. I have gone through the D/P file along with the findings submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Perused the findings as well as the relevant documents also statement of the PWs recorded by the Enquiry Officer. On perusal of all documentary evidences, it is found that on 15.04.2014 while the delinquent Constable was posted at Guijan OP, he was detailed as sentry duty at about 09.30 p.m., Sri Kartik Das along with his 03 (three) colleagues of Natun Gaon appeared at the Guijan OP to lodge an Ejahar. The delinquent was at that time under influence of alcohol. He entered into a heated argument with Sri Kartik Das in the I/C's Chamber. Due to his misbehaviour I/C of the OP told him to get out of the room. Sri Kartik Das was sitting in a chair in front of the I/C SI (UB) Mohan Sena Sinha. After about 2/3 minutes at about 09.45 p.m., the delinquent once again entered the I/C's Chamber with his 303" service Rifle, pointed towards Sri Kartik Das and open fired from point blank range. As a result of the bullet injury, Sri Kartik Das succumbed to his injuries at the Civil Hospital, Tinsukia. On perusal of the findings, in view of the fact and circumstances above and evidences on record, it is found that the charges brought against the delinquent Const.97 Thaneswar Phukan has been proved by the Enquiry Officer and also I agree with the findings of Enquiry Officer beyond reasonable doubts. As the delinquent Constable was placed under suspension and a criminal case vide Tinsukia PS Case No. 296/2014 U/S 342/302/201/34 IPC R/W Section 27 (1) Arms Act was filed against the delinquent Constable. Therefore, it is provided that this D/P is dependent of that criminal case which is now pending trial in the Hon'ble Court. The delinquent Constable shall be liable for Departmental consequences in the eventuality of his conviction in the aforesaid criminal case. Before delivering the final order, notice for personal appearance before the undersigned was given to the charged UBC/97 Thaneswar Phukan for natural justice, vide Memo No. TDP/RD/2015/7841 dated 23.08.2015. The delinquent Constable shall be liable for Departmental consequences in the eventuality of his conviction in the aforesaid criminal case. Before delivering the final order, notice for personal appearance before the undersigned was given to the charged UBC/97 Thaneswar Phukan for natural justice, vide Memo No. TDP/RD/2015/7841 dated 23.08.2015. Considering the facts and circumstances above, I Superintendent of Police, Tinsukia the disciplinary authority passed the following order:- 1. Three approved annual service increment is stopped with cumulative effect. 2. The delinquent constable is released from suspension with immediate effect. 3. The period of his suspension will be regularised on receipt of the court's judgment. 4. D/P No. 01/2014 thus disposed of." 24. A perusal of the aforesaid order dated 28.08.2015 reveals that it is the understanding of respondent No. 4 that departmental proceeding is dependent on the pending criminal case and that the delinquent Constable would face the departmental consequences following decision in the criminal case. 25. It is needless to say that criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings operate in different spheres. While criminal trial is concerned with the culpability of the accused in the commission of the crime, departmental proceeding is concerned with the commission of misconduct by the delinquent. Here is a case where the materials on record prima facie show respondent No. 7 killing the brother of the petitioner by his service rifle inside the Police Out Post in presence of respondent No. 6. For this, he has been charge sheeted under section 302 and sent up to face trial. In so far the criminal trial is concerned, law will take its own course. However, administratively, this is a serious misconduct which can be and in-fact had been departmentally gone into independent of the criminal prosecution. In a case of this nature, decision taken in the departmental proceeding would have no relation to the pendency of the criminal case. A person who has been charged with killing a citizen inside the police station by his service rifle has been awarded the penalty of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. Such an administrative decision appears to be wholly inadequate and requires to be reviewed. 26. A person who has been charged with killing a citizen inside the police station by his service rifle has been awarded the penalty of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. Such an administrative decision appears to be wholly inadequate and requires to be reviewed. 26. As noticed above, Superintendent of Police is the disciplinary authority and while imposing the penalties on the two delinquent, prima facie he had shown insensitivity to the plight of the family members of the deceased who was killed inside the police station for no apparent reason. Evidently, he had failed to gauge the magnitude of the misconduct. That part, he did not examine the role of other policemen stationed in the Police Out Post in trying to suppress the incident including by destruction of evidence in the hospital. Such policemen with arms may pose a grave threat to the members of civil society. This aspect also needs to be looked into. 27. Thus not only the penalties imposed upon respondent Nos. 6 & 7 are required to be reviewed by imposition of such penalty, which may be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, the role of the disciplinary authority is also required to be examined by the higher authorities of the police administration. 28. Coming to the aspect relating to payment of compensation, from the additional- affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is seen that State has granted a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs as ex-gratia payment to the mother of the deceased. 29. This is a case where there was clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The life and liberty of petitioner's brother Kartik Das was taken away by a police man inside the police station in complete violation of the law. When there is violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most cherished right of a citizen, a writ court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can certainly award monetory compensation as a public law remedy. 30. When there is violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most cherished right of a citizen, a writ court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can certainly award monetory compensation as a public law remedy. 30. This branch of civil rights jurisprudence was acknowledged by the Supreme Court of India in Rudul Sah vs. State of Bihar & Another, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 141 where, it was explained that order for compensation in such a proceeding would be in the nature of a palliative and would not preclude the affected person from bringing in a suit to recover appropriate damages from the State and its erring officials. Compensation awarded under the public law remedy is in the nature of exemplary damages for violation of civil liberties of a person, which is not compensation as is understood under the private municipal law. 31. This aspect of the law was further elaborated by the Supreme Court of India in Bhim Singh vs. State of J&K & Others, reported in (1985) 4 SCC 677 where, it was stated that a constitutional court would have the right to award monetory compensation by way of exemplary cost or otherwise in the event of breach of a fundamental right. 32. In Nilabati Behera @ Lalita Behera vs. State of Orissa & Others, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746 , the view in Rudul Sah (supra) was approved and it was held that a superior court in exercise of its powers under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India would be competent to award compensation for contravention of a fundamental right. The Apex Court observed as follows:- "17. It follows that a 'claim in public law for compensation' for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the Constitution, is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection of such rights, and such a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a constitutional remedy provided for the enforcement of a fundamental right is 'distinct from, and in addition to, the remedy in private law for damages for the tort' resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right. The defence of sovereign immunity being inapplicable, and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights, there can be no question of such a defence being available in the constitutional remedy. The defence of sovereign immunity being inapplicable, and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights, there can be no question of such a defence being available in the constitutional remedy. It is this principle which justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State or its servants in the purported exercise of their powers, and enforcement of the fundamental right is claimed by resort to the remedy in public law under the Constitution by recourse to Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. This is what was indicated in Rudul Sah vs. State of Bihar and is the basis of the subsequent decisions in which compensation was awarded under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, for contravention of fundamental rights." 33. In Chairman Railway Board & Others vs. Chandrima Das & Others, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 465 , which was a case relating to award of compensation by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to a foreign national, who had suffered the heinous offence of rape within railway premises, the Apex Court while upholding the compensation awarded held that where public functionaries are involved and the matter relates to violation of fundamental rights or the enforcement of public duty, the remedy would still be available under the public law, notwithstanding that a suit for damages can still be filed under the private law. 34. The above legal position has been approved and consistently applied by the constitutional courts of the country in several subsequent decisions, including in the latest case of Sanjay Gupta vs. State of UP, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 280. 35. As explained by the Apex Court, in a proceeding of this nature, Court would not be guided by the principles which would normally be available while determining compensation under the private law. Nature of compensation under both the jurisdictions is different. It is not necessary for further dilation on this aspect of the matter since, admittedly, in this case fundamental right of petitioner's brother under Article 21 of the Constitution was violated. 36. Unlike other cases, this case stands out for an altogether different reason. In this case, a citizen of the country had gone to the police station to get a first information registered. 36. Unlike other cases, this case stands out for an altogether different reason. In this case, a citizen of the country had gone to the police station to get a first information registered. Instead of registering the first information, he was killed by a man in uniform within the police station, that too, in front of the superior officer for no apparent reason. As if that is not enough, the factum of killing of petitioner's brother was not divulged to the group members who had returned back to the Police Out Post. Instead, a blatant lie was told by respondent No. 6 that the deceased had left the police station. This speaks very poorly of respondent No. 6 as a superior officer of the Out Post. In such circumstances, the ex-gratia amount paid to the mother of the deceased appears to be inadequate and needs enhancement. On due consideration, Court is of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the amount is doubled. 37. Before issuing the necessary directions, Court would like to observe that a disciplined and efficient police force is the strength of the society. People look towards the police force to protect them from criminals and crime. The police are expected to protect the citizens. If the men in uniform behaves in a manner like in the present case, people will loose faith in the police force which in turn will have far reaching impact on the criminal justice system in the State. If a citizen cannot approach the police, where else can he go? This is an aspect respondent No. 2 should seriously ponder and definite steps should be taken to sensitise the men in uniform, particularly, the Constabulary about civility and respect to human rights. 38. Having said what had to be said, it must be made clear that observations in this judgment have been made for deciding this case only and should in no way influence the trial Court while conducting the criminal trial. 39. In view of the discussions made above, Court is of the view that following directions may now be issued:- (1) Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to review the penalties imposed on respondent Nos. 6 and 7 by the disciplinary authority and impose appropriate penalties commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct committed by the said respondents. 39. In view of the discussions made above, Court is of the view that following directions may now be issued:- (1) Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to review the penalties imposed on respondent Nos. 6 and 7 by the disciplinary authority and impose appropriate penalties commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct committed by the said respondents. (2) Respondent No. 2 shall examine the role of respondent No. 4 while imposing penalties on respondent Nos. 6 & 7 as to whether he had shown any laxity or any attempt to safeguard the interest of the delinquents. (3) Respondent No. 2 may identify the policemen who were posted in the Guijan Police Outpost when Kartik Das was killed and may consider withdrawing them from such duty involving handling of fire arms. (4) Respondent No. 1 & 2 are directed to pay a further sum of Rs. 3 lakhs to the mother of deceased Kartik Das, if necessary from the funds earmarked for Tinsukia District Police and ensure that the said sum is paid to her within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 40. Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Tinsukia shall assist the petitioner and her mother in the receipt of compensation and submit report to the Registry of the Court within 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Respondent No. 2 shall also submit compliance report to the Registry of the Court within 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 41. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.