M. SHARMA, J.

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners for a direction of this Court to investigate the killing of the son of the petitioner No.1 late Ditil Chandra Moran, in police custody, by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

(2.) The petitioner No. 1 is the widow mother of the deceased Ditil Chandra Moran and petitioner No.2 is the brother of the deceased. Deceased at the time and death was aged about 19 years and he appeared in the H.S.L.C. Examination (Repeaters) held in January 1996 from Sankardev High School, Kazupathar. The deceased was the Executive Member of Balijan Branch of Moran Students Union and also active member of All Assam Student Union (AASU) and also the General Secretary of his High School. The deceased was known as a renowned player of flute and has performed at various cultural functions at various places. He had no criminal background whatsoever. On 15/2/96 at around 3.30 P.M., the deceased along with one Padmadhar Katowal went out from his village for a rehearsal of a cultural programme at Tekarigaon about 10 km away from Mihiliritu Gaon. The rehearsal was to be held for the purpose of conducting a group cultural programme to be staged at the cultural field, Margherita next day for the occasion of a public rally to be attended by Shri Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, Ex-Chief Minister of Assam. While deceased was awaiting for some public conveyance in order to go to Tekari Gaon, raised their hands and stopped a truck going towards Pengaree asking for a lift, but suddenly two police constables got down from the truck and caught hold the deceased and started beating him. A number of passerby/ villagers protested but the police forcibly put the deceased inside the truck and drove towards Pengaree. Being afraid of Padmadhar fied away from the place of occurrence. On 16.2.96 a group of police personnel came to the petitioners house and took the petitioner No. 2 to the Pengaree Out Post. The petitioner No.1 along with her daughter was already on her way to the Pengaree Police Out Post in search of the deceased, but when they reached the Police Station they found the dead body in the police lock up and they were told by the police that the deceased hanged himself inside the lock up. The petitioner could see blood coming out from the nose and bruises cover the body. Many villagers also gathered at the police out post to see the dead body. The allegation of the petitioner is that at the time of picking up the deceased by the police constables no ground was disclosed as to why me boy was arrested and detained in the lock up. At about 11.00 A.M. the body of the deceased was taken to the A.M.C. Hospital by the police. The petitioner No. 2 was also token to Dibrugarh along with the police party and the post mortem was conducted by the A.M..C Hospital, but the petitioner No.1 was never told about the outcome of the said post mortem. At about 7.30 P.M. the dead body of the deceased was brought back to the residence of the deceased by a contingent of 30 police personnel and although the family members, relatives and large number of villagers and students who had gathered expressed their willingness to perform the cremation and last rituals of the deceased in the next morning, the police in a most arbitrary manner insisted that the cremation had to be done in the said night itself. Having no other alternative, body of the deceased was buried in the back-yard of the petitioners landed house and after such burial, the police personnel left the village.

(3.) Further contention of the petitioner is that on the pressure of the public over the incident of killing, an administrative enquiry was directed to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner by one Executive Magistrate into the facts relating to the cause of death. It is alleged that there is no information about the outcome of the enquiry nor any report of enquiry was furnished and there is also no knowledge of the petitioner that any report of enquiry was completed or submitted to the concerned authorities for appropriate action. Further it is contended that the son of the petitioner admittedly died in the police custody of the Assam Police while he was in lock up in the police out post; that the deceased at the time of arrest was hale and hearty and was not suffering from any disease whatsoever and there cannot be any ground that the petitioner committed suicide, and it is established fact that subjected to brutal land barbaric torture at the hands of the police petitioners son died while he was in their custody. It is further contended that the petitioner was never intimated about the medical report/or postmortem report showing the cause of death and the extent of injury sustained by the deceased in police custody and only to cover up the police atrocities of which the deceased son of the petitioner died, the police authority suppressed the matter to give protection to the police personnel who were involved in torturing to the deceased. That the family members and relatives were also deprived of their rights to perform the last rituals and religious rites as per their wish and social custom and as the incident has been hush up by police personnel to make their misconduct, the police personnel are liable to be brought and book and punished in accordance with law.

(4.) From the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has prayed to refer the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and to give necessary compensation to the family as the petitioners son is the only bright child of the family on whom the entire family expecting a bright future from him.

(5.) The Court vide orders dated 8.5.96, 2.3.98 and 13.7.98 directed the Sessions Judge, Tinsukia to make an enquiry to find out die factual position of the allegation of the petitioners and after enquiry the Report was submitted by the District and Sessions Judge.

(6.) After going through the report, I am of the view that there is prima facie case against the police personnel. However, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the report as well as the contents of the writ petition, I hold that there is no proper investigation in this matter and as the police personnel are involved in this matter, I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioners cannot expect any thorough enquiry in the matter of investigation from the police. Accordingly, taking into consideration the entire aspects of the situation and facts and circumstances of this case, I refer the matter for investigation by the CBI with regard to the cause of death of deceased in the police custody. Accordingly, Registrar General is directed to intimate the Superintendent, CBI to investigate the matter. The CBI is directed to make complete investigation within three months from the date of receipt of the order and shall proceed under the provisions of law. The superintendent of Police, Tinsukia is directed to co-operate with the investigation.

(7.) As stated above, there is a prima facie case of custodial death of the deceased so immunity cannot be claimed by the police authority in this case. The facts remained that the relatives and family members of the petitioners were deprived of performing the religious rites in cremating the deceased but the police in a most arbitrary manner buried the deceased in a precarious situation. Taking into consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the police personnel cannot escape the responsibilities of custodial death of the deceased at Pengaree Police Out Post. Accordingly, I direct the State of Assam - respondent No.1 to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only to the mother of the deceased Smt. Moheela Moran and the amount shall be deposited with the respondent No. 2 - Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia who will give the compensation amount to the petitioner No. 1 after due enquiry and identification. Respondent No. 2 so decides, can giive the awarded money to the petitioner No. 1, by Account Payee Cheque to be deposited in a Nationalised Bank in her name. The awarded money shall be given within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which petitioner No. 1 shall be entitled to get 2% interest on the amount from the date of passing of this order and judgment. With the above direction, this writ petition allowed.