SUKLA DEB Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. K. N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned Addl. Solicitor General of India, who represents the respondents.

(2.) THE wife, three minor children and the mother of Late Nandan Deb are before this Court seeking direction for compensation for the death caused to Nandan Deb, aged about 32 years, by intentional firing by constable Mahadev of the BSF, who was on duty at the relevant point of time along with his other colleagues. The right of private defence, claimed by the accused constable Mahadev, have not been accepted in the General Security Force Court (GSF Court) proceedings and as per the finding given by the GSF Court dated 10. 3. 2007, the charge against constable Mahadev of having caused the death of deceased Nandan Deb by shooting him with his service rifle was established. It may be relevant to extract the charge levelled against the accused constable :

(3.) MR. K. N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioners, submits that it is clearly established that constable Mahadev was on official duty on 5. 6. 2004 and was armed with the rifle issued to him in connection with his official duty. Accordingly he contends that the shooting by the said constable on a civilian ought to be considered as an act, which makes his employer vicariously liable to compensate for the death of the deceased civilian. In support of the contention made, the learned senior counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1997 SC 610 to contend that monetary and pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and effective remedy for redressal of established infringement of right to life of a citizen by a public servant and State is vicariously liable for the acts of their employee.