Annual Report 2012-2013 deceased. On seeing the police, Avireni Sudhakar opened fire at the police team from the house. Though he was called upon to surrender, yet he did not stop the firing and continued to fire. Thereafter, the police team retaliated in self-defence. After the firing stopped, the police entered the house and found the dead body of Sudhakar with bullet injuries. Arms and ammunition were recovered from the scene of offence. 4.180 Upon consideration of the postmortem and magisterial enquiry reports received, the Commission found the police version doubtful since neither the provisions of the law were followed by the police nor any independent witnesses were examined. Further, it was to be noted that there is no evidence of forensic laboratory or the opinion from the ballistic expert confirming that the weapons recovered from the place of incident were fired before forwarding the same to the expert and that the empty rounds alleged to have been recovered from the scene of occurrence were fired from the same weapons. It was also essential to note that the police had not taken fingerprints of the deceased and fingerprints from the weapons to confirm that the fingerprints matched so as to say with certainty that it was the deceased who used the weapon. 4.181 The Commission also observed that there is another independent and scientific test which was required to be carried for finding out the gunshot residue on the hands of the deceased. A swab or hand wash is taken and forwarded to the expert to trace the gunshot residue. This test being scientific and independent ought to have been conducted to show that it was the deceased who used the weapon. In the absence of independent eye witnesses, these tests are very essential and important. However, in the absence of the same, it is difficult to accept the version of the police. Considering the aforesaid aspects, the Commission prima facie opined that the human rights of the deceased had been violated. Accordingly, the Commission issued a notice u/s 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to the Government of Andhra Pradesh through its Chief Secretary to show cause why suitable monetary relief should not be recommended by the Commission to the next of kin of the deceased Avireni Sudhakar. 4.182 The Commission vide its proceeding dated 5 December 2012 considered the submissions made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh but was unable to accept the explanations in the light of the evidence on record. It observed that the evidence points to the likelihood that Avireni Sudhakar, who may well have had established criminal antecedents, was cornered in a hut and shot at close range. For this violation of human rights, the Commission believed that it would be appropriate for the State to make reparations. Accordingly, the Commission recommended to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to pay ` 5,00,000 as relief to the next of kin of late Avireni Sudhakar. Compliance report along with proof of payment is awaited in the case. 56 NHRC