Page No.# 1/14 GAHC010242312017 2025:GAU-AS:711 In the Gauhati High Court (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI WP(C) NO. 6349 OF 2017 Md. Jakiruddin Ahmed, Son of Late Faziruddin Ahmed Residing at PoruwaMuslimgaon, NikamulSatra, P.O. Tezpur, Dist.-Sonitpur, Assam-784001 …… ..Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Assam Through the Commissioner and Secretary, Home Department, Dispur, Guwahati-781006. 2. The Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Relief and Rehabilitation department, Dispur, Guwahati-781006. 3. The Director General of Police, Assam, Ulubari, Guwahati-8. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur, Tezpur. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Sonitpur, Tezpur, Assam. Page No.# 2/14 6. Kanaklata Civil Hospital, Tezpur, (through its Superintendent) Tezpur, Dist. Sonitpur, Assam- 784001. 7. Tezpur Medical College and Hospital through its Superintendent of Bihaguri, Tezpur-784010. 8. The 155 Base Hospital Tezpur c/o 99 APO 9. Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) through its Superintendent,Bhangagarh, Guwhati- 781032. …… .. Respondents Advocate for the Petitioner (s) : Mr. S. K. Singh, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. A. Ganguly. Advocate for the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Bhattacharya, Advocate. Date of Hearing and Judgment : 23.01.2025. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE :: JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL):: Heard Mr. S. K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Bhattacaharya, learned State counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2; Ms. S. Baruah, learned State counsel for respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and Mr. S.S. Roy, learned counsel for Page No.# 3/14 respondent No.8. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner hasprayed for a high level enquiry to enquire into the gunshot/bullet injury suffered by the petitioner at PoruaChariali, Tezpur on 20.04.2017 and also claimingappropriate compensation including all cost of future treatment to the petitioner for the injury suffered by the petitioner due to police firing on 20.04.2017. 3. The petitioner suffered a serious bullet injury during an incident of police firing on 20.04.2017 at PoruaChariali in Tezpur when the Assam Police open fire to disperse a violent protestors which had gathered to protest the death of a person in a road accident. 4. The brief facts leading to the filing of this present petition are that on 20.04.2017 at around 8.00 pm, there was a road accident at PoruaChariali in Tezpur on NH-37 which resulted in the death of one Md. Masum Ali @ Masim Ali. A large number of local people gathered at the spot and began to protest because the PoruaCharialihad become an accident prone area and many persons had lost their lives due to the reckless and speedy driving of the vehicles.The protesters attacked the vehicles passing through the spot and also attacked the police from the nearby Mahabhairab police outpost, which reached on the spot soon thereafter. 5. The petitioner is the owner of a garage near Mahabhairab police outpost, a little distance from the accident site. After closing the wielding garage while he was returning home, he stopped after noticing the protest by the people at PoruaChariali. Along with one Sri DulGoswami, the petitioner tried to pacify the crowd, as the protests were taking on a violent and communal colour. Unfortunately, all of a sudden, the petitioner was struck by a bullet on his back Page No.# 4/14 and had fell down.It is contended that at that moment, one police personnel had also hit the petitioner with a lathi, even though petitioner pleaded that he was struck by a bullet. 6. The petitioner was taken to Kanaklata Civil Hospital (KCH) at Tezpur but the doctors present express inability to treat a patient having gunshot injuries and after discharging,he referred the petitioner to Tezpur Medical College &Hospital (TMCH) for treatment as he was required specialized surgery immediately. The family members of the petitioner reached there and took him to the EMM Hospital, Tezpur. The doctors also suggested that the petitioner be taken to Guwahati for treatment and also warned them that the petitioner may not survive considering the long distance journey to Guwahati in that condition. 7. Thereafter the Superintendent of Police, Tezpur reached at the hospital and he told the petitioner's family members that he would arrange for a police escort and take the petitioner to Guwahati. However, the brothers of the petitioner refused to take him to Guwahati and informed the Superintendent of Police, Tezpur that they will take the petitioner to the 155 Base Hospital, Tezpur, a military hospital near Mission Chariali, Tezpur, which was agreed to by the Superintendent of Police, Tezpur and took both the petitioner and the treating doctors from Tezpur Medical College to the 155 Base Hospital, Tezpur. The doctors at the military hospital took immediate steps for surgery of the petitioner and the Superintendent of Police, Tezpur has assured the petitioner's family that he would bear all expenses of the treatment of the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, Tezpur was present till 12.30am in the 155 Base Hospital, Tezpurthereafter left two police constables at the hospital. The petitioner had undergone operation on 22.04.2017. It is contended that the local MLA also visited the petitioner at the military hospital and promised Page No.# 5/14 compensation from the State Government. 8. On 24.04.2017, the petitioner was informed that he had suffered bullet injury to his spinal cord, which is a matter of serious concern and asked that the petitioner be taken for higher treatment at Guwahati Medical College and Hospital or at GNRC Hospital, Guwahati. The family members of the petitioner informed the same to the Superintendent of Police, Tezpur about the seriousness of the injury and that the petitioner has to be taken to Guwahati, which the Superintendent of Police, Tezpuragain promised to bear all the expenses of treatment. On 25.04.2017 when the family members of the petitioner were waiting for the response of the Superintendent of Police, Tezpur on 25.04.2017, the condition of the petitioner began to deteriorate and the treating doctors at the military hospital pressurized the petitioner's family to shift him to Guwahati.The family members of the petitioner had to pay the medical bill. Thereafter, the petitioner was shifted to Guwahati accompanied by one Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. Finally, when no proper treatment was given to the petitioner at GuwahatiMedical College &Hospital (GMCH), he was shifted to GNRC, Guwahati and was discharged from there on 06.05.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to Paras HMRI Super Specialty Hospital and then Spine Clinic at Patna, Bihar, where the petitioner had undergone further surgery and remain admitted for 5 (five) days.It is contended that the family members of the petitioner had to bear all expenses of the medical treatment despite assurances and promises given by the Superintendent of Police, Tezpur. 9. Mr. S.K Sing, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has suffered a serious injury to which he has become 40% disability due to bullet injury causedby the Assam Police on the day of the incident i.e. on20.04.2017.The Petitioner was not party to the mob or the protesters as he Page No.# 6/14 was a passerby, who had made an attempt to pacify the protesters. It is an admitted fact that the police had fired a few rounds in order to disperse the unruly protestors at PoruaCharialion 20.04.2017, which has hit the petitioner on his back and caused severe injury to his spinal.The petitioner despite assurances, has not been compensated even for the expenditures of the medical treatment and he was earningRs.55,000/- from his business. Due to gunshot injury, the petitioner has suffered 40% disability and he is bedridden since so many months and would require future treatment in a Super Specialized Hospital from time to time because of the damage in the spinal due to bullet injury. The police has compounded their mistakes by refusing to acknowledge that the petitioner suffered the bullet injury due to police firing on the 20.04.2017 as is evident from the fact that the police has tried to conceal their negligence by inducing the petitioner to make a false claims under Motor Vehicles Act for getting compensation. The negligence of the police by firing a bullet over the protesters is writ large in as much as there is no warning nor any orders by the Executive or the Superior authority in accordance with the law. The petitioner has been subjected to an act of gross violence by the State, particularly, the Assam Police, which requires to be appropriately compensated by the State. 10. Mr. S.K.Singh, learned counsel, submits that although initial prayer was also for a high level enquiry to enquire into the gunshot/bullet injury suffered by the petitioner at PoruaChariali, Tezpur, at this stage he would confined to the prayer for a direction to make appropriate compensation including all cost of future treatment to the petitioner to be paid by the State as the negligence on the part of Assam Police has led to deprivation of the fundamental right to life of the petitioner, which is due to the sheer negligence of the Assam Police. Page No.# 7/14 Therefore, prays that the respondent authorities may be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of public law remedy. 11. The respondent No.5 has filed an affidavit narrating the whole incident, which clearly shows that police had resorted to firing to disperse the unruly protesters due to death of a person on account of the motor accident occurred at PoruaChariali, Tezpur. 12. Ms. S. Baruah and Mr. A. Bhattacaharya, learned State counsels have submitted that although the petitioner has suffered a bullet injury which led to his 40% disability, until there is a report by the appropriate authority clearly showing the negligence on the part of the Assam Police for that matter the State, no compensation is entitled even under the public law remedy. 13. Mr. S. S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No.8, submits that his role is only to the extent of as to whether a treatment was given to the petitioner at 155 Base Hospital, Tezpur.He submits that it is undisputed that the petitioner was treated at the said hospital due to bullet injury. 14. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 15. Undisputedly, the petitioner has suffered a bullet injury during an incident of police firing on 20.04.2017 at PoruaChariali, Tezpur when the Assam Police opened fire to disperse a violent crowd, which had gathered to protest the death of a person in a road accident. The petitioner was rushed in a critical condition to various hospitals atTezpur and finally to Guwahati under the supervision of police personnel and on the assurance of compensation by the Superintendent of Police, Tezpur.It is the contention of the petitioner that the family members of the petitioner has spent more than Rs.8 lakhs on the Page No.# 8/14 treatment of the petitioner and still he is in partial paralysed condition as the bullet entered into the spinal cord. On perusal of the medical reports and documents,it is the admitted position that the petitioner has suffered severe bullet injury, which has led to 40% disability. 16. The petitioner has suffered a serious injury to which he has become 40% disable due to bullet injury caused by the Assam Police on the day of the incident.It appears that the Petitioner was not a party to the mob or the protesters as he was a passerby, who had made an attempt to pacify the protesters. It is an admitted fact that the police had fired a few rounds in order to disperse the unruly protestorswhich has hit the petitioner on his back and caused severe injury to his spinal. The petitioner despite assurances, has not been compensated even for the expenditures of the medical treatment. The police has compounded their mistakes by acknowledging that the petitioner suffered the bullet injury due to police firing on the 20.04.2017 as is evident from the fact that the police has tried to conceal their negligence by inducing the petitioner to make a false claims under Motor Vehicles Act for getting compensation. The negligence of the police by firing a bullet over the protesters is writ large in as much as there is no warning nor any orders by the Executive or the Superior authority in accordance with the law. In my view the petitioner has been subjected to an act of gross violence by the State, particularly, the Assam Police, which requires to be compensated by the State. 17. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent No.5 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Tezpur, it indicates that there is no dispute to the incident of police firing although same was to disperse the unruly protesters. Nothing is indicated with regard to the participation of the petitioner with the unruly protesters, nor there any materials to show that the bullet hit the Page No.# 9/14 petitioner due to his negligence or participation. Bullet appears to have hit the petitioner accidentally when the Assam Police has open fire to disperse the unruly protesters. 18. The award of compensation under the public law remedy is no longer res integra.In the case of NilabatiBehera (Smt) @ LalitaBehra (through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) Vs. State of Orissa and others reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held which is reproduced herein under:- “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 under private law for damages for the tort’ resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right. The defence of sovereign immunity being 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 RudulSah 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. 35. 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 Page No.# 10/14 to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 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, 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 RudulSah v. State of Bihargranted 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 moulded 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 Page No.# 11/14 circumspection and self-restraint, lest proceedings under Article 32 or 226 are misused as a disguised substitute for civil action in private law...” 19. In the case of D. K. BasuVs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416,the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held which is reproduced herein under:- “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 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 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 citizen, 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 Page No.# 12/14 adjusted against any amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil suit”. 20. Therelief of monetary compensation in proceedings under Article 32 by (the Supreme) 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 strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basis and indefeasible rights of the citizen. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights. Therefore, when the court moulds the relief by granting 'compensation' in proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the public law by way of penalizing 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 awards' 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 'exemplary damages' awarded against the wrongdoer 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. 21. It is now well settled that award of compensation is an appropriate and effective remedy for redress of an established infringement of a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Page No.# 13/14 22. Reverting back to the present case at hand, the petitioner has suffered a serious injury to which he has become 40% disabilitydue to bullet injury caused by the Assam Police. As noted above, it appears that the Petitioner was not a party to the mob or the protesters as he was a passerby, who had made an attempt to pacify the protesters. It is an admitted fact that the police had fired a few rounds in order to disperse the unruly protestorswhich has hit the petitioner on his back and caused severe injury to his spinal. The petitioner has not been compensated even for the expenses incurred for medical treatment. The police has compounded their mistakes by acknowledging that the petitioner suffered the bullet injury due to police firing on the 20.04.2017. The negligence of the police by firing a bullet over the protesters is writ large in as much as there is no warning nor any orders by the Executive or the Superior authority in accordance with the law. In my view the petitioner has been subjected to an act of gross violence by the State, particularly, the Assam Police, which requires to be compensated by the State. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to monetary compensation for infringement of his fundamental right to life. 23. For appropriate compensation to be paid under the public law remedy, the age of the petitioner and his income or earning mentioned in the writ petition have been duly considered. Thus, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner. 24. In view of the discussion made herein above, I am inclined to direct that petitionerbe paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) only as compensation. Accordingly, it is directed that the Respondent authorities shall pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs)only to the petitionerwithin a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. It is made clear that above mentioned amount of compensation is Page No.# 14/14 awarded in exercise of public law jurisdiction to meet the ends of justice in addition to other remedyas may be available to the petitioner under the law. 25. Writ petitioner stands allowed and disposed of. However, no order as to cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant