2. 3. 4. 5. 234 234 234 234 (2)193-94iNHRC (3)193-941NHRC (51193-941NHRC (6)193-941NHRC (case of Chinnarapu Sangaiah) (case of Varikuppala Shankaraiah) (case of ~adavat h Jaitya) (case of Battu Anjaiah & Peddaboyina-Saidulu) 6. When notice was issued the State Government denied the plea of fake encounter and sought justification for its action. The response of the State was notified to APCLC and it wanted opportunity of leading evidence to .substantiatelestablish its stand. The Commission, therefore, agreed to have a sitting at Hyderabad to receive evideme and the Ftate Government on being notified made arrangements for such a sittiw from August 21 to 24, 1995. Evidence in five of the cases was recorded from the side of the complanants. In some of these cases, the State led evidence; some~documentswere exhibited. No evidence was led in case no. 234 (4)193-941NHRC on the plea that the complainant and his witnesses had been detained by the police at some unknown place. It was agreed that further hearing would take place at Delhi with opportunity to the complainant to produce his witnesses in the case where no evidence was led at Hyderabad. Dn the 21st of September, 1995, the Commission recorded the following proceeding 7. 'Six cases were picked up by APCLC for evidence to be led and ~ n q u i r y undenaken by the ~ornrnisdoninto what is alleged as police encounter deaths in Andhra Pradesh. These six cases were set down for receiving evidences at Hyderabad from August 21 to August 24,1995. Evidence in five cases was recorded and witnesses did not turn up'in one case. We had given opportunity to the parties to lead ev dence if they so liked at Delhi. Today counsel for APCLC has reported that they do nct want to lead evidence and press for thst case. The enquiry is, therefore, confined to the remaining five cases where evidence has already been recorded.. .." Pursuant to the afop~s~ajd directioo, further hearings were undertaken. Mr Dipankar Gupta, Learned Solicitor General appeared on the request of the Commission to assist it. Advocate ~ e n e r aof l Andhra Pradesh on one occasion and the Additional Advocate General on the other argued for Andhra Pradesh and Mr Sitapati.plaoed the case of the Andhra Pradesh police. Mr Kannibaran appeared on behalf of the complainant. After we had closed the matter, the judgement of a division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.16868195 dated 14.8.1 995 was produced before 8.