Annual Report 2009-2010 round each in self-defence. Manisha was hit by one bullet and Shiv Narayan was apprehended at the tube well while the other accomplices managed to run away. An FIR No.336/2000 u/s 307 IPC was registered at Tajganj Police Station a�er the incident. On investigation, Shiv Narayan was sent for trial, but he was acqui�ed by the court. 4.103 Pursuant to the directions of the Commission, the case was probed by the State CBCID. It was found that Manisha and Shiv Narayan had no arms with them and the police had concocted a false story of encounter. The investigation of CB-CID also revealed that the seizure memos and other police records had been fabricated. The CB-CID recommended prosecution of the two Constables under section 304 IPC. 4.104 Upon consideration of the investigation report of CB-CID, the Commission found that Manisha was deprived of her life for no fault of hers. This had resulted in grave violation of her human rights. The Commission therefore issued a notice u/s 18 of the PHRA, 1993 to Government of U�ar Pradesh requiring it to show-cause why it should not recommend monetary relief to the next of kin of the deceased Manisha. 4.105 In response to the show-cause notice issued by the Commission to the Government of U�ar Pradesh, the State conceded in its communication dated 2 April 2009 that the next of kin of the deceased Manisha are entitled for payment of compensation. Accordingly, the Commission vide its proceedings dated 15 July 2009 recommended that an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- be paid to the next of kin of Manisha as monetary relief. 4.106 As the compliance report along with proof of payment was received, the case was closed by the Commission on 18 March 2010. 19. Death of Maya Devi in Police Firing in Hamirpur District of U�ar Pradesh (Case No.49828/24/35/07-08) 4.107 In this case, the complainant alleged non-registration of FIR by the police when his mother Maya Devi died on account of firing by Police Constable Surinder Kumar. He requested for instant action on the part of the Commission. The death of complainant’s mother took place when she went to the place where her three sons were ruthlessly being beaten up by two Police Constables, namely, Surinder and Patiram. 4.108 In response to the notice issued by the Commission, the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur, U�ar Pradesh submi�ed a report. As per the report, the deceased was killed by a Constable when she tried to save her three sons being beaten-up by the police. The entire incident took place in the premises of the Thana where Constable Surinder Kumar was posted. However, none of the policemen on duty took any steps to pacify Constable Surinder Kumar or for that ma�er arrest him even a�er he indiscriminately fired on the complainant’s mother, Maya Devi. The firing proved to be fatal and led to the death of Maya Devi. 4.109 On examination of the facts, the Commission felt that the family of the deceased deserves sympathy, compassion and relief. Accordingly, it issued a show-cause notice to the Government of U�ar Pradesh u/s 18(a) (i) of the PHRA as to why the next of kin of the deceased should not be granted monetary relief for the wrong commi�ed on them. In response, the Government 32 NHRC