GAINGAMLIU ZEMEI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed praying mainly for directing the Respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 14 lakhs to the Petitioner in connection with the death of her husband, Iteulung Zemei, said to have caused by some personnel of 15 JAT Regiment, as a result of their illegal, unjustified and indiscriminate firing made by them.

(2.) According to the Petitioner, on 23.5.2000, in the night, her husband, Iteulung Zemei, one Kaukambe of Mandu Village and one Heuneing of Tousem Village, who had come to Mandu Village to collect paddy, left Mandu Village for Tousem Village to collect medicine for one Miss Nambuale and at about 9.00 p.m., after having travelled about 3 kms on their way to Tousem Village, they were intercepted by some army personnel of 15 JAT Regiment stationed at Namtilam Tousem Sub-Division under the command of Lieutenant Manish Malhotra. Further, according to the Petitioner, as a result of indiscriminate firing made by the said aimed personnel, her husband got injury and died at the spot. Moreover, according to the Petitioner, in the said occurrence, the said Heuneing could escape by running away in the dark and the said Kaukambe was arrested and handed over to O.C., Tousem, Police Station by the army personnel. It is the case of the Petitioner that her innocent husband was killed as a result of illegal, unjustified and indiscriminate firing made by personnel of 15 JAT Regiment.

(3.) As per counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 to 4, on the said day, on getting a specific information about the likelihood of coming of some armed underground personnel of NSCN (K) for collection of taxes from Tousem, the said army personnel were looking for underground personnel and on seeing the said three persons carrying some weapon like implements moving towards Tousem in that night at about 240045 hrs. without any torch or lighted marshals, suspecting them to be underground persons, they were warned and asked to stop and they were fired upon when they started to run instead of stopping. According to the Respondents No. 1 to 4, the said three persons, who were running away in spite of warnings, were not innocents and firing was resorted as a last resort by asking one of the army personnel to fire and thereby using minimum force in order to incapacitate the fleeing suspected persons. It is the case of the Respondents No. 1 to 4 that in the facts and circumstances, there was sufficient justification for firing upon the said three persons on that day and time. According to the Respondents, had the firing been not made and the said persons, if happened to be armed underground personnel, would have inflicted casualties on the army personnel and as such, from point of self defence also, the army personnel reacted in a soldierly manner.