JUDGMENT AND ORDER : R.R. Prasad, J. This application has been filed by the petitioner seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.50 lakhs on account of death of the petitioner's husband namely Mr. Sidique @ Shiena Khan caused by the personnel of 28th Assam Rifles in a fake/fictitious encounter. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband, Md. Sidique @ Shiea Khan was a member of an outlawed Islamic Liberation Front (ILF). However, he along with his associates being fade up with fugitive life, surrendered along with their arms and ammunitions before the General Officer Commanding, 57th Mountain Division on 10.2.2001. Thereupon, the Assam Rifle personnel lodged the petitioner's husband and his associates in one of the camps. They went on transferring them from one camp to another. Meanwhile, Assam Rifles personnel also took assistance of the petitioner's husband in counter insurgency operation and thereby the petitioner's husband rendered his valuable services for about one year in conducting counter insurgency operation by the Assam rifles personnel. Thereupon, the Assam Rifle personnel allowed the petitioner's husband to go back to his home and lead a normal life with the instruction that whenever his services would be required, he would be called by them. Accordingly, whenever services of the petitioner's husband were requisitioned through one Md. Azimuddin, the petitioner's husband went to the camp and rendered his services and came back. In course of time, petitioner's husband married the petitioner and out of their wedlock 2 children begotten. The petitioner's husband, in order to earn his livelihood, engaged himself in trading whereby he, by bringing household/eatable items from Myanmar, used to supply to the shops located at Komlakhong and its nearby villages. 2. While the petitioner's husband was leading a normal life, he was summoned through Md. Azimudin by the personnel of Assam Rifles. Accordingly, he left home along with Md. Azimudin on 8.12.2003 at around 3 PM. While the petitioner's husband was on his way to his destination, the petitioner happened to meet him and on being asked petitioner's husband replied that he was going to Assam Rifles' camp located at Thoubal but on 9.12.2003 the petitioner was informed by some local people that dead body of her husband his lying in Lilong mortuary. While the petitioner's husband was on his way to his destination, the petitioner happened to meet him and on being asked petitioner's husband replied that he was going to Assam Rifles' camp located at Thoubal but on 9.12.2003 the petitioner was informed by some local people that dead body of her husband his lying in Lilong mortuary. On getting this information, the petitioner along with family members went to the mortuary and found her husband dead and suspected to have been murdered brutally which got confirmed from the post mortem examination which revealed that the death had occurred due to bullet injury. 3. In such event, it has been pleaded that there has been every reason to believe that it was the personnel of 28th Assam Rifles who killed her husband at Pitchi Ching (hill) at Thoubal District and then the personnel of Assam Rifles came with the false plea that the petitioner's husband has been killed in an encounter and on such allegation a case was lodged which was registered as FIR Case No.105(12)03 YPK PS u/s 121/121-A/307/34 of the IPC and also u/s 25(1-C) Arms Act and 13 UA(P) Act against the petitioner's husband. 4. Thereupon, the petitioner got the said facts published in the daily newspaper on 16.12.2003 and made a formal appeal from the Superintendent of Police, Thoubal District to hold an inquiry in the matter relating to murder of the petitioner's husband under the Command of respondent No.3 (the Commandant 28th Assam Rifles) in a fictitious encounter. When the petitioner felt that in spite of appeal being made, nothing fruitful is coming out, she filed this writ application with the prayer to pay compensation on account of killing of her husband by the personnel of Assam Rifles in a fake/fictitious encounter. 5. This Court, vide order dated 16.11.2005, directed the learned District & Sessions Judge, Imphal West to conduct an inquiry to ascertain the fact leading to the death of the husband of the petitioner. Pursuant to that order, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Imphal West took up the matter for holding inquiry whereby he summoned the concerned persons of both sides who placed their respective cases before the Enquiry Officer. 6. Pursuant to that order, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Imphal West took up the matter for holding inquiry whereby he summoned the concerned persons of both sides who placed their respective cases before the Enquiry Officer. 6. The stand which was taken by the personnel of Assam Rifles is that the petitioner's husband after his surrender, had never been lodged in any of the camps of the army/Assam Rifles nor his services were ever requisitioned by the Assam Rifles personnel and thereby whatever the case has been made out it is all concocted whereas the fact of the case is that on getting information regarding movement of armed militants at Sekmai-Yairipok road at night, a column of 28th Assam Rifles located at Thoubal laid an ambush over Sekmai-Yairipok road on 8.12.2003 at 2235 hours. At about 0250 hours (09.12.2003) they could locate two persons approaching the ambush site in a suspicious manner. However, they took a different route from the site where the ambush had been laid and accordingly the column having readjusted the ambush challenged both the individuals to halt. Immediately on being challenged both the persons jumped into the thick vegetation around the ambush site and attempted to flee away. While fleeing away, one of them resorted to firing upon the troop. In retaliation personnel of Assam Rifles also resorted to firing as a result of which one of the militants received gut shot injuries and died. Thereupon, one DBBL gun along with ammunitions, a Revolver along with ammunitions and one 12 bore FCC were recovered from there. Thereupon, armed personnel handed over the dead body and also the recovered items to the Officer in- Charge of Yairipok P.S. with a written report, on the basis of which an FIR was lodged. It is also the stand of the Assam Rifles that Post Mortem Report indicating the death due to gunshot injury goes to prove their case that the deceased died in the encounter. 7. The learned District & Sessions Judge, in order to find out the circumstances in which the deceased died, examined 8 witnesses produced by the petitioner. It is also the stand of the Assam Rifles that Post Mortem Report indicating the death due to gunshot injury goes to prove their case that the deceased died in the encounter. 7. The learned District & Sessions Judge, in order to find out the circumstances in which the deceased died, examined 8 witnesses produced by the petitioner. Of them, PW 1 is the petitioner, wife of the deceased who, in her examination, has supported her case as made out in the petition filed before this Court and also before the Enquiry Officer wherein she testified that after her husband surrendered, he remained in the camp for 1½ years and then was allowed to settle at home and thereby husband started earning his livelihood by engaging himself in trade. But, during this period whenever services of the petitioner's husband was requisitioned by the army personnel, he assisted them and that the assistance was sought by the army personnel through Md. Azimuddin who used to visit her house. She has also testified that on 7.12.03 said Md. Azimudin came to her house and stayed in the night and in the morning they left home. While living at home, the petitioner's husband told her, on being asked, that he was going to camp and on the next day she came to know that her husband died and as such there has been every reason to believe that he has been murdered by the Assam Rifles personnel. 8. PW 2, Md. Faridkhan, PW-5 Md. Ayub Khan and Shri Aribam Ibomcha @ Abdul Kalam, PW-6 are the persons who along with the deceased had surrendered before the personnel of Assam Rifles. According to them while they were in the camp, they assisted Assam Rifles in conducting counter insurgency operations. During that time, one Md. Azimudin, their co-villager, used to visit their camp and when they were allowed to go home, Azimudin frequented them and always trying to impress upon them to assist the Assam Rifles. But, they, since were leading a normal life, turned down their request. They did also depose that said Md. Azimudin had involved himself in assisting the Assam Rifles in getting so many persons killed. PW-5 has gone to depose that the other day while he was near a Bus waiting Shed, Assam Rifles personnel came and asked him to come to the camp along with Aribam Ibomcha (PW-6) Mr. They did also depose that said Md. Azimudin had involved himself in assisting the Assam Rifles in getting so many persons killed. PW-5 has gone to depose that the other day while he was near a Bus waiting Shed, Assam Rifles personnel came and asked him to come to the camp along with Aribam Ibomcha (PW-6) Mr. Noorham and Sidique Ali (deceased). At that time Md. Azimudin was there in the company of said Assam Rifles personnel. On the next day, he along with the aforesaid person came to the camp and presented themselves before two officers named as Rotho Saheb and Greep Saheb where Md. Azimudin was also present. There, those two officers told them by offering cash and liquor to be informer but they declined. Thereupon they returned home but found said Md. Azimudin several times in the village in company with the deceased. Later on, he came to know that said Md. Azimudin was killed at Dimapur and when the dead body was brought to the village, it was not allowed to be buried at the burial ground by the villagers as said Md. Azimuddin was responsible in getting so many villagers killed by the Assam Rifles. This fact has been supported by the PW-4, a co-villager of the deceased who has claimed to have seen the deceased living in the village on 8.12.2003 in the company of Md. Azimuddin. Similar is the evidence of one Md. Tahir Ali, PW-8 who happened to be the brother of the deceased. He also claimed to have seen the deceased living in the village in company of Md. Azimudin. 9. On the other hand, one Subedar JD Barma, RW-1 was examined on behalf of the Assam Rifles who in his evidence narrated the said fact about the deceased being killed in encounter. According to him, after the deceased was killed, they searched the area and found the incriminating articles as stated above lying at the place which were seized and then the dead body along with the seized articles were given to the police upon which case was registered. According to him, after the deceased was killed, they searched the area and found the incriminating articles as stated above lying at the place which were seized and then the dead body along with the seized articles were given to the police upon which case was registered. But according to the evidence of one W. Ibomcha, RW-2, Sub Inspector of Police of Yairipok PS, examined on behalf of the District Police, he along with the officer in-charge of the said Police Station came to the place of occurrence at about 6 AM on 9.12.2003 on getting said telephonic information. On reaching there, he made inspection of the place of occurrence and seized incriminating articles and also found dead body of the deceased lying over there. Thereupon, dead body was put to Lilong mortuary. 10. On such materials, the Enquiry Officer, having found the testimonies of the witnesses adduced on behalf of the petitioner being consistent establishing cold blooded murder whereas on the other hand he did find inconsistency in the testimonies of the witnesses namely the RW-1 and RW-2, did record that the respondent, Assam Rifles, has failed to establish its case and thereby the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the deceased has been killed in a fake encounter. The said enquiry report was submitted on 30.1.2012 which was ordered to be furnished to all the parties and thereupon objection was taken to the said report on behalf of the respondent by filing affidavit in-opposition. 11. Heard Mr. L. Sashibhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Sr. G.A. assisted by Mr. Th. Sukumar Singh, Addl. G.A. appearing for the state respondents and Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing for the union of India. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the enquiry report it becomes quite evident that the deceased was killed in fake encounter and thereby petitioner being the widow of the deceased is entitled to have a heavy compensation. G.A. appearing for the state respondents and Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing for the union of India. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the enquiry report it becomes quite evident that the deceased was killed in fake encounter and thereby petitioner being the widow of the deceased is entitled to have a heavy compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that accepting the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer to be true, it can never be said that the petitioner has been able to prove his case of fake encounter and that not a single eye witnesses is there before whom the incident as has been claimed by the petitioner, had taken place and thereby the report submitted by the District & Sessions Judge is not acceptable. 13. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and regard being had to the facts brought on record, we do find circumstances emerging, enumerated below, proving prima facie deceased being killed in fake encounter :- (i) Admittedly the deceased along with his associates, i.e. PWs-2, 3, 5 and 6, the members of an outlawed organization namely Islamic Liberation Front (ILF) surrendered before the personnel of Assam Rifles; (ii) Upon their surrender, they were kept in Camps. This fact has been denied by the respondents but keeping in view testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses-PWs 2,3,5 and 6, there does not appear to be any reason to disbelieve that the deceased as well as the aforesaid witnesses were kept in camp for about 1½ years; (iii) Similarly there appears to be no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses that they assisted personnel of Assam Rifles in taking counter insurgency operation while they were in camps and even after leaving the camp whenever assistance was sought through Md. Azimudin, who appears to be informer of the Assam Rifles; (iv) On being released from the camp, the deceased settled at home and started earning livelihood by engaging himself in trading; (v) Said Md. Azimudin always tried while the deceased and witnesses were lodged at camp and even thereafter when they came home that they should help the Assam Rifles personnel by being the informers which offer was always declined by the deceased; (vi) On 8.12.2003 the deceased left the village along with said Md. Azimudin always tried while the deceased and witnesses were lodged at camp and even thereafter when they came home that they should help the Assam Rifles personnel by being the informers which offer was always declined by the deceased; (vi) On 8.12.2003 the deceased left the village along with said Md. Azimudin who had come one day before and while going to camp PW-1, wife of the deceased, had occasion to meet her husband on the way who, on being asked by PW-1, told her that he was going to camp and that even PWs-4 and 8 saw the deceased going in company with Md. Azimudin; (vii) Testimonies of the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents before the Enquiry Officer itself suggest concoction of the case made out by the respondents as according the RW examined on behalf of the Assam Rifles when the deceased was killed in counter firing dead body and also the incriminating articles were recovered and were handed over to Officer in-Charge, Yairipok PS but this has been contradicted by RW-2, Sub Inspector of Police, Yairipok PS wherein he has testified that on information being given, they reached to the place of occurrence at 6 AM on 9.12.2003 and then seized the incriminating articles and also found the dead body lying over there; (viii) The motive, which prima facie appears to be there, is that the deceased was not coming to the terms of the Assam Rifles as was conveyed through Md. Azimudin for being informer which may have led the Assam Rifles to have grudge against the deceased; (ix) When the deceased surrendered voluntarily and was even assisting the Assam Rifles in taking counter insurgency operation, there does not appear to be any reason for the deceased to again join or work for the said organization, i.e. ILF particularly when the deceased was earning his livelihood by engaging himself in trading; 14. Thus, the aforesaid circumstances, prima facie, go to indicate the deceased being killed in fake encounter. It be stated that admittedly there has been no eye witness but in the circumstances under which the occurrence has taken place, if one would be seeking direct evidence instead of putting reliance on the circumstances to come to a conclusion, the cause of justice would certainly suffer. It be stated that admittedly there has been no eye witness but in the circumstances under which the occurrence has taken place, if one would be seeking direct evidence instead of putting reliance on the circumstances to come to a conclusion, the cause of justice would certainly suffer. Under the circumstances, we do find that this is the case of unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty and thereby the petitioner would be entitled to compensation. In this regard we may refer to a decision rendered in a case of D.K.Basu v. State of W.B. : (1997) 1 SCC 416 wherein it was observed as follows: "44. The claim in public law for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty, the protection of which is guaranteed under the Constitution, is a claim based on strict liability and is in addition to the claim available in private law for damages of tortious acts of the public servants. Public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. Award of compensation for established infringement of the indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitutions is remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and preserved. Grant of compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India for the established violation or the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21, is an exercise of the Courts under the public law jurisdiction for penalising the wrong door and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. 45. The old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to the remedies available in civil law limits the role of the courts too much, as the protector and custodian of the indefeasible rights of the citizens. The courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the court and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. A Court of law cannot close its consciousness and aliveness to stark realities. The courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the court and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. A Court of law cannot close its consciousness and aliveness to stark realities. Mere punishment of the offender cannot give much solace to the family of the victim - civil action for damage is a long drawn and cumber some judicial process. Monetary compensation for redressal by the Court finding the infringement of the indefeasible right to life of the citizen is, therefore, useful and at times perhaps the only effective remedy to apply balm to the wounds of the family members of the deceased victim. Who may have been the bread winner of the family. 54. Thus, to sum up, it is now a well accepted proposition in most of the jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign immunity is nor available and the citizen must revive the amount of compensation from the State, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrong doer. In the assessment of compensation, the emphasis has to be on the compensatory and not on punitive element. The objective is to apply balm to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or the offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offence (irrespective of compensation) must be left to the criminal courts in which the offender is prosecuted, which the State, in law, is duty bound to do, That award of compensation in the public law jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other action like civil suit for damages which is lawfully available to the victim or the heirs of the deceased victim with respect to the same matter for the tortious act committed by the functionaries of the State. The quantum of compensation will. of course, depend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no strait jacket formula can be evolved in that behalf. The quantum of compensation will. of course, depend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no strait jacket formula can be evolved in that behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for the established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under he public law jurisdiction is, in addition to the traditional remedies and not it derogation of them. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Court and paid by the State to redress The wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted against any amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil suit. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances, the age and earning of the deceased, number of dependants, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.5 lakh/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) will meet the end of justice. Accordingly, the respondents-2 and 3 are directed to pay compensation amount to the petitioner, the widow of the deceased, within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thus, this application stands disposed of.