Richard Sangyung vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors.

Page No.# 1/23
GAHC010024212018

2026:GAU-AS:12436
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/652/2018
RICHARD SANGYUNG
S/O- SRI RABINDRA SANGYUNG, SAMBUDHANPUR, P.O./P.S.- MAIBANG,
MAIBANG, DIST- DIMA HASAO, ASSAM, PIN-788831
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SACHIVALAYA,
DISPUR, GHY-6
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
HOME AND POLITICAL DEPTT.
GOVT. OF ASSAM
SACHIVALAYA
DISPUR
GHY-6
3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
GOVT. OF ASSAM
ASSAM POLICE (H.Q)
ULUBARI
GHY-7
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DIMA HASAO DISTRICT
HALFLONG
DIMA HASAO
ASSAM
PIN-788831
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DIMA HASAO DISTRICT

Page No.# 2/23
HALFLONG
DIMA HASAO
ASSAM
PIN-78883
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BORTHAKUR, MR. V RAJKHOWA,MR. D GOGOI
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MS. D D BARMAN, ADDL. SR. GOVT. ADV. ,SC,
DIMA HASAO,MR. K GOSWAMI

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Date : 26-08-2026
(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J)
Heard Mr. V. Rajkhowa, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath,
learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has prayed for the
following reliefs:-
“ (i) setting aside and quashing the Order dated 30/01/2018 bearing Memo
No. DH/CON/L&O/2018/758-62 issued by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy
Commissioner, Dima Hasao district, ordering for a Magisterial Enquiry into the firing
incident at Maibang on 25/01/2018, and/or
(ii) setting aside and quashing the Notice dated 31/01/2018 bearing No.
NCH/MENQ/RK/2018/03 issued by Sri. Ranjit Kr. Laskar, ACS, Addl. District
Magistrate, Camp - Maibang, Dima Hasao, who is entrusted with the Magisterial
Enquiry for the instant firing incident at Maibang on 25/01/2018, calling
individual(s), organization(s), official(s) to give evidence, and/or
(iii) to conduct an independent enquiry and/or Independent enquiry by a
retired Judge of Gauhati High Court into the incident of Police firing at Maibang
railway station on 25/01/2018 leading to the death of two persons and gunshot
injury to a dozen others, and/or
(iv) show-cause as to why an appropriate writ, order or direction should not

Page No.# 3/23
be issued so as to give full relief in the matter and/or
(v) call for the records and on perusal thereof and after hearing the parties
may be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or may be pleased to pass such
further or other order/orders as to this Hon'ble Court may seem fit and proper.”

3. The facts requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present writ petition
is noticed as under:
3.1. The petitioner in the present writ petition has projected that his brother Sunujit
Sangyung, had suffered grievous injuries along with others, on account of indiscriminate
firing, resorted to by police upon the peaceful protesters at Maibang Railway Station area
in Dima Hasao district, on 25-01-2018. The petitioner has projected that basing on a
news item published in National, as well as the local newspapers with regard to creation
of a “Greater Nagalim”, and inclusion, therein, areas of Dima Hasao district, a grievance
arose amongst the ‘Dimasa’ people. Further, it is projected by the petitioner, that the
National News Portal, viz. “The Wire”, on 19-01-2018, had carried news item of a draft
plan of the Nagaland accord being so prepared by a national organization and therein, it
being proposed to include areas within the Dima Hasao district, within the proposed
“Greater Nagalim”, an apprehension arose within the ‘Dimasa’ community of a deprivation
being caused to them and accordingly, community organizations, like the Jadikhe Nalso
Hosom (JNH), the Dimasa Apex Body; Dimasa Students Union (DSA); All Dimasa Students
Union (ADSU); Dimasa Women Society (DWS); Dimasa Mothers Association (DMA),
started protest programmes, against the inclusion of Dima Hasao areas within “Greater
Nagalim”.
3.2. It is projected by the petitioner that on 25-01-2018, i.e. on the eve of the Republic

Page No.# 4/23
Day celebration, protesters had gathered at the various locations across the Dima Hasao
district and participated in dharna programmes. Such conglomeration of people had also
occasioned in the railway track near Maibang Railway Station. It is further projected by
the petitioner that the dharna programme had gone on peacefully, until around 02:30
p.m., at which time the Deputy Commissioner, Dima Hasao, had arrived at the spot, with
a strong police force and without declaring the assembly to be unlawful and/ or taking
steps for dispersing the group, the police started ‘lathi’ charge on the peaceful protesters,
injuring many women and minors. The said action is projected to have agitated the
protesters. It is further contended by the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner, Dima
Hasao district, thereafter, without any warning had ordered for firing on unarmed
protesters. Accordingly, it is alleged that the police started indiscriminate firing on the
unarmed protesters at the Maibong Railway Station with modern weapons. The petitioner
contends that on account of the indiscriminate firing resorted to by the police, death of 02
(two) protesters occasioned, in addition to causing injuries of varying degrees to many
protesters, including the petitioner’s brother. It is further projected that amongst the
injured, 03 (three) were minors. The petitioner has further projected that 03 (three)
enquiries were conducted and reports submitted, with regard to the firing incident. The
03 (three) enquires so conducted were conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Dima
Hasao, a Magisterial Enquiry by the Addl. District Magistrate, Dima Hasao and by a One
Man Enquiry Commission constituted by the Government. It is projected that none of the
reports submitted, can be construed to be submitted in pursuance to an independent
enquiry carried out and further that a perusal of the reports would go to reveal that the

Page No.# 5/23
same were so prepared and submitted so as to protect the police as well as the
Government officials, involved in the incident.
3.3. It is further projected by the petitioner that two police cases were registered
pertaining to the said incident, viz., Maibang P.S. Case No. 02/2018 registered on the
basis of information given by Mayank Kumar, IPS, the then SDPO, Maibang. The other
police case being Maibang P.S. Case No. 06/2018, was so registered basing on a FIR
lodged by one Kailen Daulagapu, President, JNH Central Committee. It is further projected
by the petitioner that the investigation in the said police cases, were being so conducted
with the objective to protect the interest of the police and other Government officials,
involved in the said incident. The petitioner has further projected that the deceased as
well as the injured persons were granted compensation by the State. However, the
amount of compensation, so granted, was not commensurating to the injuries sustained
and the violation of their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, occasioning
in the matter.
3.4. In the above premises, the petitioner had instituted the present writ petition
praying for the reliefs noticed, hereinabove, and also for grant of exemplary compensation
to the deceased person as well as to the 03 (three) seriously injured persons, including
the brother of the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, by drawing our attention to
the order sheets, maintained in the present writ petition, has submitted that this Court
while monitoring the investigation in the matter, in connection with 02 (two) police cases,
registered, had clearly noticed the anomaly existing in the investigation, so carried out by

Page No.# 6/23
the Investigating Officer, along with the undue delay occasioning, in conclusion of the
investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that perusal of
the enquiry reports brought on record, including the reports submitted by the One Man
Enquiry Commission, constituted by the Government, to enquire into the firing incident
occasioning on 25-01-2018, would reveal that the same were so submitted without a
proper enquiry being conducted. He submits that basing on the said enquiry reports the
factual background leading to the firing incident is not permissible to be so discerned. The
learned counsel for the petitioner, further submits that from the injuries sustained by the
deceased as well as the other persons, it would be clear that the minimum requisite
precaution required to be taken in the matter by the police officials, while resorting to
firing, purportedly to disburse an unlawful assembly, was not adhered to. He submits that
the injuries sustained by the victims and also bullet injuries found above their waist,
would go to suggest that the police had resorted to excessive force in the matter and had
carried out indiscriminate firing.
4.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner by highlighting the irregularities committed
in the investigation of the police cases involved, has submitted that the said irregularities
goes to the root of the matter and has the effect of vitiating the investigation.
Accordingly, he submits that this Court would be pleased to direct for an enquiry into the
matter by an independent body/ authority, for ascertaining the actual cause leading to the
firing incident.
4.2. Having made the above submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the State had proceeded to sanction compensation to the deceased as well

Page No.# 7/23
as the injured protesters. However, he submits that the amounts so sanctioned were
exceptionally low and inadequate and was not even sufficient to meet the medical
expenses incurred, not to mention the lifelong scars and deformity suffered by the injured
victims in pursuance to the injuries sustained by them during the police firing incident.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the indiscriminate firing
incident had resulted in violation of the Fundamental Rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India in respect of the deceased victims as well as the injured victims and
the said aspect of the matter was not reckoned while determining the quantum of
compensation sanctioned to the victims.
4.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has placed
reliance on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:-
(a) Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746.
(b) D.K. Basu Vs. State of W.B. reported in (1997) 3 SCC 433.
5. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the
respondents, has submitted that a ‘Bandh’ call was given by certain community
organization on 25-01-2018 for 12 hours, i.e. 05:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. He submits that it
is not disputed by the petitioner that a section of the people had also sat on the railway
track of the Maibang Railway Station. He submits that at around 09:30 a.m., on 25-01-
2018 Mayank Kumar, IPS, the then SDPO, Maibang, had reported to the Superintendent of
Police, Dima Hasao, over phone, that around 400 protesters had blocked a Silchar bound
passenger train at Maibang Railway Station. Accordingly, the Addl. Superintendent of
Police (HQ) and Addl. Superintendent of Police (S), Maibang, were directed to proceed

Page No.# 8/23
immediately to the Maibang Railway Station, with available additional force fully equipped
with riot gear. At around 10:30 am of 25-01-2018, the concerned authorities had learnt
from the SDPO, Maibang, that the protesters had damaged the railway track by removing
fish plates of the track.
5.1. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that when the SDPO,
Maibang, tried to approach the protesters to dissuade them from causing damage to the
railway property, the protesters started stone pelting on the police party. It is projected
that the SDO(C), Maibang, having refused to declare the assembly as unlawful, the police
party had not taken any further action in the matter and used civil force to disperse the
crowd, as the safety of the on-board passengers of the train could not be ensured, if the
mob turned violent, in the event force was used. The learned counsel for the respondents
further submits that at around 01:30 p.m., both the Superintendent of Police and the
Deputy Commissioner, Dima Hasao, reached Maibang Police Station and as soon as they
had alighted from their vehicles and proceeded towards the protesters, the protesters
started pelting stones on Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police and
other accompanying Govt. officials, without any provocation.
5.2. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that on account of the said stone
pelting several police and civil personnel came to be grievously injured. By referring to the
reports submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Dima Hasao, the learned counsel for
the respondents, has submitted that the protesters had damaged the Railway Station
building and equipment and attacked GRP establishment, therein. The mob further
damaged the fuel tank of the stranded train and had put tyres below it, with the intention

Page No.# 9/23
to set it on fire. He submits that it was at this stage, that the SDO(C), Maibang declared
the assembly as unlawful and ordered use of proportionate force to disperse the unlawful
assembly from the Railway Station.
5.3. The learned counsel for the respondents, submits that, thereafter, the police used
gas grenade, stun grenade, dye markers, rubber bullets and blank rounds, to disperse the
crowd, but as the crowd continued with the stone pelting and damaged public and railway
property, the police resorted to blank firing in the air, but when the situation got worse
and the stone pelting started from all sides, left with no other option, the police party
resorted to controlled single shot firing, below the knee, to disperse the crowd.
5.4. The learned counsel for the respondents, submit that at around 03:30 p.m., the
crowd was successfully dispersed and the police force had taken control of Maibang
Railway Station. The learned counsel, by referring to the enquiry reports submitted in the
matter including the one submitted by the One Man Enquiry Commission, constituted by
the Government, submits that, the reports highlights the fact that there was sufficient
provocation from the protesters, which compelled the district administration to resort to
firing upon the protesters, to control the unruly mob, after other measures taken, had not
resulted in dispersing the protesters. The learned counsel, further submits that the One
Man Enquiry Commission, in its report, had also recorded a finding to the effect that
bullet injuries, found to be sustained by the protesters on the upper part of the body, was
on account of the fact that the police forces had fired from a height, i.e. the Railway
platform. It is reiterated by the learned counsel that the firing being necessitated, as the
other measures taken for controlling the mob had failed, the police had resorted to only a

Page No.# 10/23
controlled firing for dispersal of the mob. He submits that given the number of the
protesters present in the place, i.e. the Maibang Railway Station, on the fateful day, had
the police authorities resorted to indiscriminate firing, the death/ injuries would have been
much more. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, that only
limited number of persons having sustained injuries, would go to establish that the police
personnel had resorted to controlled firing in the matter, after taking all requisite
precautions. He submits that the injuries sustained by the victims on the upper part of the
body can also be explained on account of continuous stone pelting occasioning in the
matter, which may have distracted the police personnel firing at the relevant point of time.
5.5. With regard to the two police cases involved in the matter, the learned counsel for
the respondents has submitted that in connection with the Maibang P.S. Case No.
02/2018, the investigation being concluded, a charge-sheet being Maibang P.S. Charge-
sheet No. 19/2025, dated 13-10-2025, has already been laid against 06 (six) accused
persons, under Section 120B/ 143/ 144/ 145/ 147/ 148/ 332/ 333/ 353/ 435/ 307/ 188/
34 IPC read with Section 3/ 4 of PDPP Act. With regard to the investigation in connection
with Maibang P.S. Case No. 06/2018, registered in connection with a FIR filed by the
President of JNH Central Committee, the learned counsel submits that, on conclusion of
the investigation, a Final Report bearing No. 04/2025 dated 16-09-2025, has been
submitted before the court of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Dima Hasao. It is
accordingly submitted that the investigation, in the above noted matters, having been
concluded and the charge-sheet/ final report having been submitted, in the event, the
petitioner and/ or any other person has any grievance with regard to the manner of

Page No.# 11/23
investigation and/ or any other aspects of the matter, it would be open for the petitioner
and other interested persons to take appropriate steps, thereon, in accordance with the
procedure, as set out, in this connection in the provisions of the Cr.P.C./ BNSS, 2023 and
this Court would be pleased, at this stage, not to express any opinion, thereon. The
learned counsel for the respondents, with regard to the claim made by the petitioner, for
grant of compensation to the deceased as well as the 03 (three) seriously injured
protesters, has submitted that the Government has already, basing on the enquiry reports
available in the matter, sanctioned adequate compensation to the victims and in the
event, any further compensation is claimed by the petitioner, they would be required to
approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction for claiming damages, in accordance
with law.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the
materials available on record.
7. The facts noticed, hereinabove, are not in dispute. The petitioner in the present
writ petition, has projected that the police in the matter had resorted to use of excessive
force and indiscriminate firing in the name of dealing with a purported unruly mob at
Maibang Railway Station. The respondents, on the other hand, have projected that the
situation as had developed in the matter on the fateful day, i.e. on 25-01-2018, all civil
measures taken to disperse the unruly mob having failed, the assembly was declared to
be an unlawful assembly and the police were required to use proportionate force for the
purpose of dispersing the crowd. Consequently, the provocation from the protesters
having increased, along with the pelting of stones from all sides, the police had to resort

Page No.# 12/23
to controlled firing. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for interference
with the Magisterial Enquiry Report submitted by the Addl. District Magistrate, Dima
Hasao and for conduct of an independent enquiry by a retired Judge of this Court into the
incident of police firing occasioning at Maibang Railway Station, on 25-01-2018. As
noticed, hereinabove, in respect of the said firing incident, 02 (two) FIRs, came to be
lodged in the matter, one of the FIRs was lodged by the Mayank Kumar, IPS, the then
SDPO of the area at the relevant point of time. The said FIR lodged by Mayank Kumar
was registered as Maibang P.S. Case No. 02/2018 dated 26-01-2018 under Section 120B/
143/ 144/ 145/ 147/ 148/ 332/ 333/ 353/ 435/ 307/ 188/ 34 IPC read with Section 3/ 4 of
PDPP Act. The second FIR was lodged by one Kailen Daulagapu, which was registered as
Maibang P.S. Case No. 06/2018, on 26-01-2018, under Section 325/ 302/ 34 IPC. The
respondents have brought on record, the enquiry reports submitted by the jurisdictional
Superintendent of Police, a Magisterial Enquiry conducted by the Addl. Deputy
Commissioner, Dima Hasao and the Enquiry Report submitted by a One Man Enquiry
Commission constituted in the matter by the Government vide notification dated 29-01-
2018. The said One Man Enquiry Commission, was headed by an Addl. Chief Secretary to
the Govt. of Assam, Finance etc. department. A perusal of the terms of the reference of
the One Man Enquiry Committee, reveals that the Committee, was to ascertain the facts
and circumstances leading to the violence that had erupted at Maibang Railway Station on
25-01-2018, causing injury to personnel of police and civil administration and damage to
public and railway property and subsequent use of force by the police personnel resulting
in injury to several persons, out of which two persons subsequently succumbed to their

Page No.# 13/23
injuries. The Enquiry Committee was to ascertain, as to whether there was any lapse on
the part of the civil administration/ police in resolving the situation peacefully and, if so,
fix the responsibility.
8. The One Man Enquiry Commission, thereafter, conducted its enquiry in the matter
and after examining witnesses including the members of the public, proceeded to submit
its report in the matter on 04-03-2018. The findings and conclusions recorded by the One
Man Enquiry Commission being relevant, is extracted, here-in-below:-
“ FINDINGS: During the hearing none of the members of the public refuted
the fact that the agitators went out of control and public property was damaged.
The complaint of the people was that the police resorted to firing without giving
any announcement or tear gas firing. Secondly, the youth were fired at their head
and chest instead of the lower part of the body. According to public, this shows
that the intention of the police force was to kill the boys rather than to control the
crowd.
I have gone through all the above arguments and found the following:-
1) There was sufficient provocation from the protesters which compelled the
district administration to use force by firing, use of tear gas, etc. to control the
unruly mob who were indulging in damaging public property and also endangering
the lives of officials, common people and railway passengers. If use of force
including firing was not resorted to, casualty in terms death and injury would have
been much higher.
2) It is not a fact that the police did not try other methods like tear gas to
control the mob. Police, in fact used tear gas and stun grenade, etc. to disperse
the mob.
3) The boys were hit by bullet on the upper part of the body since the police
forces fired from a height, the platform.
In conclusion, the decision on the part of the civil and police forces to use
force was timely and unavoidable. Due to the use of force, including firing, further
loss of lives and damage to public property were avoided. In short, it was found
that there was no lapse on the part of the civil and police administration.”

9. With regard to the police cases registered in the matter, referred here-in-above,

Page No.# 14/23
this Court during the pendency of the present proceeding had required the investigating
agencies to take the investigation involved to its logical conclusion. Accordingly, the
investigation in the above noted 02 (two) police cases have been concluded. The police
on conclusion of the investigation in Maibang P.S. Case No. 06/2018, had submitted a
final report, thereon, on 16-09-2025, before the jurisdictional court. With regard to the
investigation in connection with Maibang P.S. Case No. 02/2018, on conclusion of the
investigation, thereon, a charge-sheet being Maibang P.S. Charge-Sheet No. 19/2025
dated 13-10-2025, was laid under Section 120B/ 143/ 144/ 145/ 147/ 148/ 332/ 333/
353/ 435/ 307/ 188/ 34 IPC read with Section 3/ 4 of PDPP Act against 06 (six) accused
persons, viz. (i) Sri Bishal Hojai; (ii) Smti. Surodi Thousen (iii) Smti. Alpana Langthasa;
(iv) Sri Sunujit Sengyung; (v) Sri Thangsen Langthasa and (vi) Sri Thaisring Hojai.
10. The incident had occasioned on 25-01-2018. Considering the long lapse of time
occasioning in the matter, as well as the submission of Enquiry Reports including the one
submitted by the “One Man Enquiry Commission”, and the conclusion of the investigation
in the police cases, registered with regard to the said incident, we are of the considered
view that at this stage, a direction for a further enquiry in the matter by an independent
authority, would not be relevant. The Charge-Sheet/ final report having been submitted in
the police cases, instituted with regard to the said incident, the petitioner and/ or other
persons, interested in the matter, having a grievance with regard to the manner in which
the investigation was carried out, would be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceeding, in
accordance with law. Accordingly, a further consideration of the said prayer in the present
writ petition would not be called for.

Page No.# 15/23
11. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now consider the prayer made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, during his submission with regard to grant of
adequate compensation by way of exemplary damages to 02 (two) deceased persons,
viz. Praben Hakmus and Mithun Dibragede and also in respect of 03 (three) persons
receiving serious injuries, viz. Alpana Langthasa, Thaisring Hojai and Sunujit Sengyung.
However, from the materials brought on record, we are not in a position to categorically
hold that the same had so occasioned on account of firing being resorted to by the police
personnel, without any provocation from the protesters. While the learned counsel for the
petitioner had disputed the Enquiry Report, submitted in the matter including the Enquiry
Report submitted by the One Man Enquiry Commission, as constituted in the matter by
the Government, the factual matrix as incorporated in the said Enquiry Report including
the damage caused to the railway property, as well as the damages caused to the civil
and police vehicles and also the setting up of fire to police TATA Sumo, by persons who
were a part of the violent mob, has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Accordingly, the said firing incident cannot be held by this Court, from the
materials available on record, to be one so resorted by the police without there being any
provocation from the protesters.
12. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now consider the decision
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in this connection. The learned
counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Nilabati Behera (Supra) . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case,
considering the issue with regard to direction for payment of compensation, under public

Page No.# 16/23
law remedy, had drawn the following conclusions:-
“ 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. 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 Article 32 and 226 of
the Constitution. This is what was indicated in Rudul Sah and is the basis of the
subsequent decisions in which compensation was awarded under Article
32 and 226 of the Constitution, for contravention of fundamental rights.
……………………………
24. Accordingly, we direct the respondent State of Orissa to pay the sum
of Rs.1,50,000 to the petitioner and a further sum of Rs.10,000 as to be paid to
the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. The mode of payment of Rs.1,50,000 to
the petitioner would be, by making a term deposit of that amount in a scheduled
bank in the petitioner's name for a period of three years, during which she would
receive only the interest payable thereon, the principal amount being payable to
her on expiry of the term. The Collector of the District will take the necessary steps
in this behalf, and report compliance to. the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within
three months.
25. We clarify that the award of this compensation, apart from the
direction for adjustment of the amount as indicated, will not affect any other
liability of the respondents or any other person flowing from the custodial death of
petitioner's son Suman Behera. We also expect that the State of Orissa would take
the necessary further action in this behalf, to ascertain and fix the responsibility of
the individuals responsible for the custodial death of Suman Behera, and also take
all available appropriate actions against each of them, including their prosecution

Page No.# 17/23
for the offence committed thereby.”

13. Dr. Justice Anand in his concurring opinion, had drawn the following conclusions:
“ 35. The public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private
law proceedings. The relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in
proceedings under Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts,
for established infringement of the indefeasible right guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law and is based on the strict
liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the
citizen. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to
assure the citizen that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their
interests and preserve their rights. Therefore, when the court molds the relief by
granting "compensation" in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution
seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the
public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public
wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental
rights of the citizen. The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be
understood, as it is generally understood in a civil action for damages under the
private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making
'monetary amends' under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of
public duty, of not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen. The
compensation is in the nature of exempellary damages' awarded against the wrong
doer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available
to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action
based on tort, through a suit instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction or/and
persecute the offender under the penal law.
36. This Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of the civil liberties
of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to
grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 and 226 of the
Constitution to the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly
infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers.to the
fundamental rights of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the
remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings. The State, of course has the
right to be indemnified by and take such action as may be available to it against
the wrongdoer in accordance with law through appropriate proceedings. Of course,

Page No.# 18/23
relief in exercise of the power under Article 32 or 226 would be granted only once
it is established that there has been an infringement of the fundamental rights of
the citizen and no other form of appropriate redressal by the court in the facts and
circumstances of the case, is possible. The decisions of this Court in the line of
cases starting with Rudal Sah Vs. State of Bihar granted monetary relief to the
victims for deprivation of their fundamental rights in proceedings through petitions
filed under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the rights
available under the civil law to the aggrieved party where the courts found that
grant of such relief was warranted. It is a sound policy to punish the wrongdoer
and it is in that spirit that the Courts have molded the relief by granting
compensation to the victims in exercise of their writ jurisdiction. In doing so the
courts take into account not only the interest of the applicant and the respondent
but also the interests of the public as a whole with a view to ensure that public
bodies or officials do not act unlawfully and do perform their public duties properly
particularly where the fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 21 is concerned.
Law is in the process of development and the process necessitates developing
separate public law procedures as also public law principles. It may be necessary to
identify the situations to which separate proceedings and principles apply and the
courts have to act firmly but with certain amount of circumspection and self-
restraint, lest proceedings under Article 32 or 226 are misused as a disguised
substitute for civil action in private law. Some of those situations have been
identified by this Court in the cases referred to by Brother Verma, J.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by noticing its decision in the case of Nilabati Behra
(Supra), in the case of D.K. Basu (Supra) , had drawn the following conclusions:-
"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 not available and the citizen must receive the amount of compensation
from the State, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrongdoer. 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 offence (irrespective of compensation) must be left to the criminal courts in

Page No.# 19/23
which the offender is prosecuted, which the State, in law, is duty-bound to do. The
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 relief to redress the wrong for the
established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizens, under the public law
jurisdiction is, thus, in addition to the traditional remedies and not in 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 be way of damages in a civil suit."
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anita Thakur & Ors. Vs. Govt. of
J&K & Ors. reported in (2016) 15 SCC 525 , had drawn the following conclusions:-
“ 14. On the other hand, there is always a possibility that a public rally may
become unruly, which can mean damage to life and property. This is when a public
assembly becomes 'unlawful', which is defined in Section 141 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC). Under these circumstances, the district administration and the police
are permitted to disperse the crowd to prevent injuries or damage. This may entail
the use of force in a controlled and specified manner. We also have Section 268 of
the IPC which defines 'public nuisance' as any act 'which must necessarily cause
injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use
any public right'. Further, Section 143 of the Cr.P.C. empowers an Executive
Magistrate to prohibit the repetition or continuation of public nuisances and Section
144 Cr.P.C. permits the issuance of directions to members of the public to abstain
from a certain act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his
possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that such
direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury
to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a
disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, or an affray. These legal provisions
provided a wide array of powers to the police, including the right to use reasonable
force to disperse any unlawful assembly and maintain public order.
15. Thus, while on the one hand, citizens are guaranteed fundamental right
of speech, right to assemble for the purpose of carrying peaceful protest
processions and right of free movement, on the other hand, reasonable restrictions
on such right can be put by law. Provisions of IPC and Cr.P.C., discussed above, are
in the form of statutory provisions giving powers to the State to ensure that such
public assemblies, protests, dharnas or marches are peaceful and they do not
become 'unlawful'. At the same time, while exercising such powers, the authorities

Page No.# 20/23
are supposed to act within the limits of law and cannot indulge into excesses. How
legal powers should be used to disperse an unruly crowd has been succinctly put
by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Karam Singh Vs. Hardayal Singh wherein
the High Court held that three prerequisites must be satisfied before a Magistrate
can order use of force to disperse a crowd: First, there should be an unlawful
assembly with the object of committing violence or an assembly of five or more
persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace. Second, an Executive
Magistrate should order the assembly to disperse. Third, in spite of such orders,
the people do not move away.
16. Before adverting to the issue at hand, we would like to make some
general remarks about the manner in which these demonstrations are taking
shape. Recent happenings show an unfortunate trend where such demonstrations
and protests are on increase. There are all kinds of protests: on social issues, on
political issues and on demands of various sections of the society of varied kinds. It
is also becoming a common ground that religious, ethnic, regional language, caste
and class divisions are frequently exploited to foment violence whenever mass
demonstrations or dharnas etc take place. It is unfortunate that more often than
not, such protestors take to hooliganism, vandalism and even destroy public /
private property. In the process, when police tries to control, the protestors/mob
violently target policemen as well. Unruly groups and violent demonstrations are so
common that people have become to see them as an appendage of Indian
democracy. All these situations frequently result in police using force. This in turn
exacerbates public anger against the police. In Kashmir itself there have been
numerous instances where separatist groups have provoked violence. In this
scenario, task of the police and law enforcing agencies becomes more difficult and
delicate. In curbing such violence or dispersing unlawful assemblies, police has to
accomplish its task with utmost care, deftness and precision. Thus, on the one
hand, law and order needs to be restored and at the same time, it is also to be
ensured that unnecessary force or the force beyond what is absolutely essential is
not used. Policemen are required to undergo special training to deal with these
situations. Many times the situations turn ugly or go out of control because of lack
of sufficient training to the police personnel to deal with violence and challenges to
their authority. There are various documents in the form of police manual and even
international covenants proscribing use of unnecessary force and mandating that
force should only be used when it is absolutely necessary. Even when used, it
should be minimum and proportional to the situation and its use to be discontinued
as soon as the danger to life and property subsidised.
17. In those cases where assembly is peaceful, use of police force is not
warranted at all. However, in those situations where crowd or assembly becomes
violent it may necessitate and justify using reasonable police force. However, it
becomes a more serious problem when taking recourse to such an action, police
indulges in excesses and crosses the limit by using excessive force thereby
becoming barbaric or by not halting even after controlling the situation and

Page No.# 21/23
continuing its tirade. This results in violation of human rights and human dignity.
That is the reason that human rights activists feel that police frequently abuses its
power to use force and that becomes a serious threat to the rule of law.
18. When we examine the present matter in the aforesaid conspectus, we
find that initially it was the petitioners/ protestors who took the law into their
hands by turning their peaceful agitation into a violent one and in the process
becoming unruly and pelting stones at the police. On the other hand, even the
police personnel continued the use of force beyond limits after they had controlled
the mob. In the process, they continued their lathi charge. They continued to beat
up all the three petitioners even after overpowering them. They had virtually
apprehended these petitioners making them immobile. However, their attack on
these petitioners continued even thereafter when it was not at all needed. As far as
injuries suffered by these petitioners are concerned, such a situation could clearly
be avoided. It is apparent that to that extent, respondents misused their power. To
that extent, fundamental right of the petitioners, due to police excess, has been
violated. In such circumstances, in exercise of its power under Article 32 of the
Constitution, this Court can award compensation to the petitioners. (See – Saheli,
A Women's Resources Center, Through Ms. Nalini Bhanot & Ors. v. Commissioner of
Police, Delhi Police Headquarters & Ors.3 ; Joginder Kaur v. The Punjab State &
Ors.4 ; The State of Rajasthan v. Mst . Vidhywati & Anr.5; and Smt. Nilabati Behera
@ Lalita Behera (through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) v. State of
Orissa & Ors.6). The ratio of these precedents can be explained thus: First, it is
clear that a violation of fundamental rights due to police misconduct can give rise
to a liability under public law, apart from criminal and tort law. Secondly, that
pecuniary compensation can be awarded for such a violation of fundamental rights.
Thirdly, it is the State that is held liable and, therefore, the compensation is borne
by the State and not the individual police officers found guilty of misconduct.
Fourthly, this Court has held that the standard of proof required for proving police
misconduct such as brutality, torture and custodial violence and for holding the
State accountable for the same, is high. It is only for patent and incontrovertible
violation of fundamental rights that such remedy can be made available. Fifthly, the
doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply to cases of fundamental rights
violation and hence cannot be used as a defence in public law.”
16. Applying the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed, hereinabove, to the
facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that initially it was the protesters
who had taken the law into their hands by turning their peaceful agitation to a violent one
and in the process becoming unruly and pelting stones at the police. The police,
thereafter, had resorted to firing. The police personnel had resorted to such firing from

Page No.# 22/23
the railway platform, while the protestors were in the railway track, at the relevant point
of time. The nature of injuries, projected to have been suffered by the victims, would go
to reveal that either on account of the lack of understanding of the situation and/ or
being so distracted by the stone pelting incident occasioning in the matter, the firing
incident had also resulted in the victims suffering bullet injuries, above their waist also.
Accordingly, in view of the injuries sustained by the petitioners, a case of violation of their
fundamental rights is found to have been made out.
17. It has been settled by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, noticed,
hereinabove, that this Court can direct for payment of compensations to the victims. Such
compensations awarded by this Court would be borne by the State and not the individual
police personnel involved in the matter. Further, doctrine of sovereign immunity does not
apply to the cases of Fundamental Rights violation and cannot be used as a defense in
public law. Accordingly, considering the matter in its proper perspective, we direct the
State to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the family of
each of the deceased victims, i.e. Praben Hakmus and Mithun Dibragede. We also direct
that the payment of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each to the
03 (three) seriously injured victims, viz. Alpana Langthasa, Thaisring Hojai and Sunujit
Sengyung.
18. The payment of compensation as is being ordered by us, is not to be understood,
as it is generally understood in a civil action for damages under the private law but in the
broader sense of providing relief by an order making monetary amends under the public
law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty of not protecting the Fundamental

Page No.# 23/23
Rights of the citizen. The compensation is only in the nature of exemplary damages,
awarded against the wrong doer for the breach of its public duty.
19. The compensation awarded by us, hereinabove, is independent of the rights
available to the aggrieved parties to claim compensation under the private law in an
action based on tort, through a suit instituted before a civil court of competent
jurisdiction.
20. The compensation as awarded by us would be in addition to any compensation so
sanctioned to the said victim by the Government in the matter. The amount of
compensation as awarded, hereinabove, be released to the families of the victims,
named, hereinabove, within a period of 03 (three) months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
21. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.

JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Digitally signed by Gobinda Prasad Sarma
DN: c=IN, o=Personal,
postalCode=781026, l=Kamrup Metro,
st=Assam, street=HOUSE NO 396
BIRKUCHI, Birkuchi No.2, Chandrapur
Assam India 781026 OPPOSITE
RAGHUNATH CHOUDHURY HINDI
SCHOOL, title=2165,
2.5.4.20=6928da6102aa078c3f0a167d2ed
fd91fb1b69cf5496e925e109d715bae3267
85,
serialNumber=69de98d4f8795174293359
cc3e5ab3a2480fc7e847f928726a048502c
9ebcf15, [email protected],
cn=Gobinda Prasad Sarma
Date: 2026.08.28 18:18:57 +05'30'
Gobind
a Prasad
Sarma