and thus fulfill the responsibilities entrusted to it under the PHRA. The Commission, on its part, is constantly seeking to refine and improve its system of complaint management. B. Illustrative Cases of 2007-2008 a) Custodial Deaths 1. Death of Kaluji alias Kaliyo Bhaguji Sorthi in District Prison, Junagarh, Gujarat (Case No. 653/6/2002-2003-CD) 6.16 The Commission received information from the Superintendent, District Prison, Junagarh, about the death of one Kaluji alias Kaliyo Bhaguji Sorthi, who was admitted in District Prison, Junagarh in Gujarat. On 31 January 2003 after he was assaulted by three co-prisoners, he was taken to the Civil Hospital, Junagarh for treatment where he was declared dead. 6.17 The Superintendent informed to the Commission that on inquiry six members of the jail staff were found to be negligent in their duty and had been punished by having their increments stopped. The Commission observed that "it was the duty of the State Government to protect the life of the prisoner and save him from assault by co-prisoners. The State had failed in the discharge of duty and so it must compensate the next of kin of the deceased." 6.18 Considering that the deceased was only 22 years of age, the Commission recommended that the State of Gujarat pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000 as monetary relief to the next of kin. 6.19 The compliance report, along with proof of payment, is awaited. 2. Killing of Kodati Venkata Krishna alias Zinnah in Police Custody in Nalgonda, Andhra Pradesh (Case No.489/1/2002-2003) 6.20 The Commission received information from the General Secretary, People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), that Kodati Venkata Krishna alias Zinnah was a victim of an encounter conducted by the Nalgonda District Police on 19 October 2002 at the outskirts of Cudappah District, Andhra Pradesh. The complaint also stated one Nagesh, who was in police custody, was likely to meet the same fate. 6.21 On consideration of the report received from the Superintendent of Police as well as the Magisterial Enquiry Report (MER), the Commission noted that while the MER stated that Zinnah had fired one round and the police party 11 rounds in retaliation, there was no mention about Zinnah having fired any round in the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police. Thus, the factum of Zinnah having fired any round at the police party appeared to be very doubtful. Other than this, there was no justification for the police to fire 11 rounds. Thus, in view of the Commission, it cannot be ruled out that Zinnah was deprived of life other than in accordance with the procedure established by law. 6.22 In response to the notice u/s 18(c) of the PHRA issued to the Chief Secretary, Andhra National Human Rights Commission 35