CHAPTER 4 ladder in order to cross over the fence. It was stated that the family of the girl was illegally staying in India and they wanted to illegally cross over to Bangladesh with the aid of touts. It was further contended that payment of compensation in such case would send a wrong signal to the society and also demoralize the security forces. 4.165 While considering the matter on 08.08.2014, the Commission admitted that that the security forces are discharging a sensitive job at the borders. It, however, observed that security forces must adhere to some discipline and norms while performing such duty. The Commission further observed that DIG (OPS), BSF Hqrs., had himself directed in order dated 05.05.2005 that even under grave provocation utmost distinction be made while dealing with unarmed women and children on one hand and armed intruders/criminals on the other hand in border areas. In the instant case, the victim was an unarmed girl. So the BSF Constable who shot at her obviously acted in disregard of the circular issued by the BSF Hqrs. Even the Staff Court of Inquiry held that he had exceeded the right of private defense. 4.166 The Commission held that there could be no justification for shooting at an unarmed girl and therefore, recommended to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as monetary relief to the next of kin of the deceased girl. The Commission also directed that the amount may be disbursed through the Indian High Commission in Bangladesh. Compliance report from the Ministry of Home Affairs was awaited. (g) Conditions in Jails 25. Prisoner Languishes in Etawah District JailEven After Completion of Sentence (Case No. 36219/24/23/2013) 4.167 Shri Kripal Singh complained about the illegal detention of himself in District Jail Etah, Uttar Pradesh beyond the sentence of imprisonment. The complainant co-accused Surender Singh has been released after completion of his sentence, but is still languishing in Jail. 4.168 The Additional Inspector General of Prisons (Admn.), Uttar Pradesh, reported that though the order of the High Court is of 23.09.2005, yet the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, sent the warrant of sentence to the jail only on 27.08.2010. In view of the warrant of sentence, the sentence of the complainant in the case started only on this date. 4.169 On consideration of material on record, the Commission found no merit in the contention of the State Government. The period of sentence should be reckoned from the date of the judgment. In this case complainant Kripal Singh and his brother Surender Singh National Human Right Commission Annual Report - 2014-2015 65