Annual Report 2009-2010 to a scooter and not to a motorcycle by the Transport Authority. Manoj Kumar Jha could neither produce any document nor could he account for the possession of the motorcycle. Consequently, he was arrested a�er an arrest memo and a Criminal Case No. 28/2007 u/s 414 IPC was registered against him. A�er investigation of the case a charge sheet was filed in the court on 5 June 2007. 4.91 A copy of the judgment delivered by the court in the case arising from Criminal Case No. 28/2007 at P.S. Jarideeh was received in the Commission as well. The prosecution examined two public witnesses to prove the factum of recovery of the motorcycle from the house of Manoj Kumar Jha. Both witnesses, however, stated in the court that they had signed the seizure memo at the instance of the police and that they had not entered the house of the accused. The court also observed that no local witness had been associated by the police at the time of recovery of the motorcycle. The court thus held that the recovery was doubtful and the accused was acqui�ed. 4.92 Since the court did not believe the police version that a stolen motorcycle had been recovered from the house of the complainant’s son on 15 April 2007, the Commission stated that it would be difficult to believe that he was actually arrested on 15 April 2007 and not earlier. The possibility of his being arrested on 8 April 2007 as alleged by the complainant cannot be just ruled out. It is significant that the complaint was sent to the Commission on 13 April 2007. If the son of the complainant had been arrested on 15 April 2007 as claimed by the police, there could have been no occasion for the complainant to approach the Commission on 13 April 2007. 4.93 Considering the infirmity in the police version, the Commission on 17 June 2009 prima facie found that the son of the complainant had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty. Accordingly, the Commission directed that a show-cause notice u/s 18 of the PHRA be issued to the Government of Jharkhand. 4.94 As the State Government did not respond to the notice, the Commission raised a presumption that perhaps the State had nothing to say in defence of the police. As a result, it was liable to compensate the victim for the wrongful act of the police. Considering all the circumstances, the Commission on 14 October 2009 recommended to the Government of Jharkhand to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as monetary relief to the victim Manoj Kumar Jha. 4.95 The compliance report along with proof of payment is awaited from the Government of Jharkhand. c) Police High-handedness, Firing and Encounter 17. Death of Ram Singh Chauhan and Jawaharlal Gaur due to Police Firing in Karbi Anglong District of Assam (Case No. 89/3/8/08-09) 4.96 Shri Suhas Chakma, Director of one NGO based in New Delhi complained to the NHRC about the killing of two persons, namely, Ram Singh Chauhan and Jawaharlal Gaur due to excessive use of firearms by the police on the protestors in Mailu area falling under Kheroni Police Station in Karbi Anglong District of Assam on 16 August 2008. He prayed for action against the erring police officials as well as compensation to the next of kin of the deceased. The Commission taking cognizance of the case called for reports from the State of Assam. 30 NHRC