K BALAGOPAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed by the Secretary of the A.P. Civil Liberties Committee for issue of a writ of mandamus seeking for a declaration that the action of respondents 1 and 2 herein in granting cash reward of Rs. 10.2 lakhs to the 6th respondent herein as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) The facts as set out in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petitioner are set out as hereunder:-

(3.) A detailed counter-affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, Karmnagar, who is the 4th respondent herein. It is submitted that the writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be rejected since the present writ petition is based on a news paper report appeared in Deccan Chronicle dated 13th and 14/04/1998. Further, it is the discretion of the Government in announcing these rewards in order to maintain law and order and with a view to apprehending notorious criminals including highly dangerous extremists. Before announcing the rewards the Government will take into consideration the activities and the threat faced by the society from the unlawful activities of extremists. The counter-affidavit sets out the true and correct facts relating to this writ petition which are set out as hereunder: Deceased Vijay @ Ramesh @ Malkapuram Bhaskar was the District Committee Secretary of extremist of Peoples War Group Organization of Karminagar District. The 6th respondent Jadala Nagaraju @ Vikam @ Mallsham is an aetive member of CPI (ML) Peoples War Group, associated with Manthani Dalam who has been associated with underground activities. The 6th respondent and later Vijay @ Ramesh has been quite hostile to each other and the 6th respondent was critical of the style of functioning by the deceased Vijay @ Ramesh. Both of them have developed enmity with each other. On the intervening night of 11th/ 12/04/1998 the underground cadre Dalam gathered at Ramgiri Khilla in Kamanpoor Mandal to discuss the party affairs. An altercation ensued between the 6th respondent and the deceased Vijay @ Ramesh. Suddenly the deceased Vijay became annoyed at the attitude of the 6th respondent and picked up an AK-47 and aimed at the 6th respondent. In the meantime, the 6th respondent lost no time in taking a carbine from Dommati Arjaiah @ Nagarju, the central organizer and opened fire at the deceased Vijay who died on the spot. The other members of the Dalam who saw the firing ran away. The 6th respondent took AK-47 and the carbine and concealed both the weapons in a house belonging to Deva Ramaswamy of Kalwacherla village and reported the matter to SHO., Kamanpoor Police Station who recorded the statement of the 6th respondent and registered a case in Crime No. 29 of 1998 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. During the course of investigation, the weapons were recovered at the instance of the 6th respondent. In short, it is the stand of the 4th respondent that the circumstances shown above prima facie prove that the 6th respondent has acted in self-defence leading to the death of the deceased Vijay who was holding more lethal weapon than the carbine and hence the question of applying Section 302 IPC does not arise. It is further stated that there is no complaint from any body to the police that the 6th respondent has shot Ramesh @ Vijay with a view to kill him deliberately. It is further submitted that the deceased Vijay @ Ramesh committed 163 offences of various nature including murder in Adilabad District (a list of cases is annexed to the counter). The Government has issued G.O. Ms. No. 183 GAD dated 11-4-1996 by notifying cash reward for the apprehension of the underground extremists of different cadres. The name of the deceased Vijay @ Ramesh is shown in serial No. 4 showing reward of Rs. 3 lakhs. It is submitted that the circumstances stated above prima facie prove mat the 6th respondent has only acted in self-defence to the death of the deceased Vijay @ Ramesh for holding more lethal weapon than carbine and hence the question of applying Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the 6th respondent does not arise since the deceased has first aimed his gun to kill the 6th respondent.