Gauhati High Court Orders Centre To Pay ₹20 Lakh To Families Of Five Killed In 1994 Army Operations In Assam

The Gauhati High Court has ordered the Union Government to pay ₹20 Lakhs compensation in the interest of justice to the families of five deceased persons who were killed in the 1994 army operation, Assam.

The High Court held that the deaths of the five men took place during the army operation, and therefore, compensation must be awarded in the interest of justice.

The bench of Justice Achintya Malla Bujor Barua and Justice Robin Phukan held that,

“ Without arriving at any conclusion as to whether the death was caused in a manner acceptable in law or in a manner unacceptable in law but however, as the materials on record clearly indicates that the death had been caused in an army operation, although the materials available on record cannot lead to a definite conclusion as to whether the death was caused in a manner acceptable in law or unacceptable in law and for the interest of justice, we order the respondents the Union of India through the army authorities to pay adequate compensation to the families of the five deceased persons.”

In 1994, Jagadish Bhuyan, the then Vice President of the All Assam Students Union (AASU), filed a Habeas Corpus petition.

The petition alleged that nine men, namely Prabin Sonowal, Akhil Sonowal, Debajit Biswas, Gunin Hazarika, Pradip Dutta, Monoranjan Das, Bhupen Moran, Prakash Sarma, and Moteswar Moran, were arrested by the army between 17.02.1994 to 19.02.1994, and their whereabouts were not known. The army authorities had not informed the respective families about the grounds of the arrest.

Another Habeas Corpus petition was filed by D.K Dutta raising the allegation that his brother Pradip Kumar Dutta had been arrested by the army authorities on 18.02.1994 from his house.

In March 1994, out of the nine men, four were produced before the District Court in Tinsukia under police escort. They were later released, and it was revealed that five of the aforementioned persons, namely Prabin Sonowal, Akhil Sonowal, Debajit Biswas, Pradip Dutta, and Bhupen Moran, had died.

In the present case, both Habeas Corpus petitions were considered to adjudicate on the matter of whether the deaths of the five men by the army officers were illegal.

In 1995, a CBI inquiry was ordered by the Court to ascertain whether the deaths were illegal. In the report submitted, it was found that the encounter theory claimed by the army was not believable. Therefore, five accused Army personnel, namely Capt. R.K. Shivrain, Dalip Singh, Nk. Palwinder Singh, L.Nk. Shivender Singh, and Nk. Jagdev Singh, were responsible for killing the five aforementioned persons, as they had actually opened fire on them. Hence, they are liable to be prosecuted under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. Similarly, two other army personnel, namely A.K. Lal, Commanding Officer, and Major Thomas Mathew, are liable to be prosecuted under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 109 I.P.C. because Col. Lal had planned the entire operation, and Major Thomas Mathew was leading the party and had ordered firing.

The Chargesheet against the aforesaid army personnel were filed in the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamup, Guwahati along with a request to forward the charge sheets to the army authorities to try the accused persons in a Court Martial proceeding as per the provisions of Section 70 of the Army Act of 1950.

In 2018 Court Martial Proceeding was conducted and the Court found that the accused Anil Kumar Lal, formerly Major General Anil Kumar Lal ,Colonel Thomas Mathew of 3 Kerala Battalion National Cadet Corps Trivandrum, Colonel RK Shivrain of Headquarters 73 Mountain Brigade,Dalip, Singh, formerly Subedar Major and Captain Dalip Singh , Palwinder Singh, Naik Palwinder Singh,Shivender Singh, Naik Shivender Singh and Jagdev Singh, formerly Subedar and Lieutenant Jagdev Singh of 18th Battalion of Punjab Regiment are guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

In 2019, the decision of the Court Martial was sent for revision. After considering further evidence, the Court Martial found that the army personnel were not guilty of the charges by the order dated 01.03.2020.

In the present case, the petitioner representing the deceased men relied on the CBI report to establish that the deaths of the five men were caused in a manner that was not acceptable under the law.

On the other hand the army authorities submitted that following the CBI enquiry, the Court Martial proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law. The order in revision resulting from the proceedings was confirmed by the competent authority, which found all army personnel not guilty of the charges

After hearing both sides and considering the material on record, the High Court decided that it could not arrive at a conclusion as to whether the death caused was illegal or not, but it did accept that the death took place during an army operation.

The court considered the submission of the army authorities that ordering an inquiry at this stage, after almost twenty-nine years, would seriously prejudice the army personnel who are alleged to have been involved in causing the death of the five persons in a manner other than acceptable in law, in defending their cases.

The court also considered that the petitioner did not have any material to prove the allegations of illegal killing beyond reasonable doubt.

The court ordered that, without arriving at any conclusion regarding the manner of killing but taking note that the materials on record clearly indicate that the deaths had been caused during an army operation, the respondents, Union of India through the army authorities, is liable to pay adequate compensation to the families of the five deceased persons in the interest of justice.

The court referred to Sri Konto Warisa and Others v UOI and Others (WP(C) No. 4368/2014) to decide that the appropriate compensation in this case would be 20 Lakhs, which has to be paid to each victim's family by the Union of India.

Case- D.K. Dutta v UOI linked case J. Bhutan v. UOI and others.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 40

Click Here To Read/Download Order