IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13575 of 1997 Between: Desaiah S/o Natesa Naidu, R/o Kanagamma satram (v), Tirutani Taluk, Chengai M.G.R...Dist, Tamilnadu, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The state of AP. rep by its prl.Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General of Police Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, Chittoor Dist. 4 The Collector Chittoor, Chittoor Dist. 5 The Collector Chengai M.G.R.District, Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu. 6 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, chittoor Dist .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay as sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the petitioner as compensation for the death of his son Haridoss who as killed in a public firing on 6-7-1995 by the vijayapuram police, Chittoot Dist. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.DASARADHA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is a resident of Kanagamma Satram Village, Tiruttani Taluk, M.G.R District bordering the Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh. He had a son by name Haridoss. On 06-07-1995 Haridoss received bullet injuries in a firing by the police in the village and succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The petitioner states that his son was just a passerby on the road and with a view to disperse two quarreling mobs, the Andhra Pradesh Police resorted to firing and in the process his son died. He claims a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation with interest against the respondents. The Superintendent of Police, the 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit. He stated that a quarrel took place between the villagers of Kanagamma Satram of Tamil Nadu and Maharajapuram of Chittoor in the context of the distribution of good will amount to be paid by one Jailauddin. It appears that Jailauddin is running a wine shop and he agreed to pay the amount to the villagers of Kanagamma Satram. The 3rd respondent states that the firing was resorted to as a measure of self-defence and as many as six persons including the deceased have received injuries. He denies the liability to pay compensation since the death of the boy was as a result of State action. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. The death of the son of the petitioner took place as a result of firing by the police. It is not even alleged that the boy had resorted to any unlawful or illegal activities. From a perusal of the counter affidavit, it becomes clear that the police party was not clear as to who tried to attack them but since both the groups were proceeding and were trying to attack them, initially rounds were fired in the air and thereafter against the mobs. Unless and until it is stated and proved that the deceased himself posed a threat to the safety of police and as a matter of self-defence he was shot dead, the State cannot avoid its responsibility for the death. It is a different thing that the concerned officials may not be held guilty of murder of the boy. However, the State cannot avoid its liability to pay compensation to the parents of the deceased. In several cases, including the one in People’s Union for Democratic Rights vs. State of Bihar and others[1], the Supreme Court held that the State is under obligation to pay compensation for any death in the hands of the police unless the deceased himself provoked the firing. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the 4th respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the petitioner within two months from today. In case, the amount is not paid within two months as directed, it shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of incident. L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 02-12-2008 ks [1] AIR 1987 SC 355