Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 113 (MAN)

Pheiroijam Ongbi Ibeton Devi v. Union of India

2014-09-09

LAXMI KANTA MOHAPATRA, N.KOSIWAR SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the deceased namely, Pheiroijam Keshorjit alias Loketomba Singh. She has filed this writ petition for payment of compensation on the allegation that the said deceased was arrested by the personnel of 19th Assam Rifles stationed at Yaingangpokpi Post in the intervening night of 20th and 21st June, 2005 and had been killed in a stage-managed encounter. 2. The case of the petitioner is that her son, after passing TDC 1st year examination in the year 1994, discontinued his studies and started working as a salesman in a pharmacy at Porompat near J.N. Hospital. Later on, he had his own pharmacy at Napetpalli and started earning for the family. He also started looking after the contract work undertaken by his brother. On 20th June, 2005 the deceased went to the contract work site of his brother on a Scooter bearing Registration No. MN-IE 3829 belonging to one of his cousins. He was accompanied by three others namely, (i) Pheiroijam Sanahongba Singh (ii) Shagolsem Joy Singh and one (iii) Laishram Shyam Singh. After completion of the work, at about 4:00 p.m., the deceased left for home on the said Scooter. On the way, a troop of 19th Assam Rifles were conducting frisking and checking of passers by at the crossing of Seijang and Sabungkhok near a bus stop/waiting shed which was located at the very entrance gate to the Secular English Academy. The deceased was stopped by the frisking troop of 19th Assam Rifles and they detained him at the waiting shed. Later, he was arrested and taken away by the 19th Assam Rifles personnel. Some other persons detained for frisking had witnessed the detention of the petitioner's son by the personnel of 19th Assam Rifles. In the intervening night of 20th and 21st June, 2005 at about 1:00 a.m. the personnel of 19th Assam Rifles took the deceased to a hillock region of Seijang and Sailen villages. There is fish farmhouse owned one Shri Koijam Sujaboro Singh, S/O K. Kulla Singh of Seijang village. The owner of the fish farmhouse was asked by the personnel of 19th Assam Rifles to put off the lights stating that there would be an encounter in and around the place. After half an hour the owner of the farm house heard two gun shots in close proximity of the farmhouse. The owner of the fish farmhouse was asked by the personnel of 19th Assam Rifles to put off the lights stating that there would be an encounter in and around the place. After half an hour the owner of the farm house heard two gun shots in close proximity of the farmhouse. In the morning the dead body of the deceased was found laying in the hillock region which is about 100 ft. from that farmhouse. On 21st June, 2005 at about 5:00 a.m. some personnel of 19th Assam Rifles came to Nongada Makha Leikai in three bullet proof vehicles and forcibly called out three villagers to identify the dead body. 3. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged at 7:00 a.m. on 21st June, 2005 by one personnel of 19 Assam Rifles alleging inter alia that on receipt of specific information from their sources an ambush party moved out in general area of Seijang-Sailen village, to lay an ambush with the aim to apprehend all insurgents operating in the area. At about 1:30 hours on 21st June, 2005 the ambush party spotted a person moving suspiciously from the direction of Seijang village and the individual was as close as 30 meters. He was challenged by the ambush party. However, the individual in turn took out a weapon and fired on the troops and started running into the forest. In the encounter the individual was shot dead and later on was identified as the deceased. 4. The petitioner also lodged a written report to the Officer-in-Charge, Lamlai Police Station alleging that the deceased was arrested by the personnel of 19th Assam Rifles on 21st June, 2005 at about 5:00 p.m. while returning on a Scooter along Imphal-Ukhrul Road from his worksite and later on, on 21st June, 2005 she was informed that dead body of her son was found laying in the hillocks of Seijang and Sailen village with marks of gun shot injuries. 5. During pendency of the writ petition, this Court considering the nature of allegation made by the petitioner and stand taken by the respondents directed an enquiry to be conducted by the learned District Judge, Manipur West. In compliance with the direction of the Court, learned District Judge, Manipur West conducted an enquiry and submitted the report on 29th April, 2011. During pendency of the writ petition, this Court considering the nature of allegation made by the petitioner and stand taken by the respondents directed an enquiry to be conducted by the learned District Judge, Manipur West. In compliance with the direction of the Court, learned District Judge, Manipur West conducted an enquiry and submitted the report on 29th April, 2011. On analysis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, learned District Judge has come to a specific conclusion that the personnel of 19th Assam Rifles had killed the petitioner's son in a stage-managed encounter. Findings of the learned District Judge, Manipur West in paragraph nos. 30 and 31 of the enquiry report is quoted below: "30. Moreover, the feature available from the testimonies of S.I. Robinson Shimray (PW-4) and Ak. Jhallajit Singh, MPS (PW-5) and RWs, it is evident that the alleged ambush was conducted without presence of civil police; though the Assam Rifles personnel had according to them, definite information of presence of militants in the said area, no attempt was made to secure presence of civil police during the alleged ambush. The Assam rifles personnel procured the presence of civil police only after alleged encounter has taken place. Thus, it is evident that the Assam Rifles had killed the petitioner's son in an stage-managed encounter for the reason best known to them. In respect of the issue viz. whether the deceased Ph. Keshorjit Singh was brutally tortured, I do not find any sufficient materials from the evidence of the P.W. No. 1 Dr. Thounaojam Meera Devi, who conducted post mortem examination over the death body of Ph. Keshorjit Singh to hold that the deceased was subjected to brutal torture while he was in custody. 31. In the light of above discussion, I do hereby hold that the deceased Pheiroijam Keshorjit alias Loketomba Singh was killed by the personnel of 19 Assam Rifles after he was arrested when he was returning from his worksite on 20th June 2005 in the evening at around 4.30 p.m." 6. 31. In the light of above discussion, I do hereby hold that the deceased Pheiroijam Keshorjit alias Loketomba Singh was killed by the personnel of 19 Assam Rifles after he was arrested when he was returning from his worksite on 20th June 2005 in the evening at around 4.30 p.m." 6. Though no objection has been filed to the said report by the respondents, Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing for the Assam Rifles submitted that the deceased had never been arrested by the personnel of 19th Assam Rifles and in absence of any evidence, the learned District Judge, Manipur West could not come to the conclusion that the deceased had been arrested and was killed by the personnel of 19th Assam Rifles. It was further submitted that the stand taken by the respondents is more probable, considering the fact that the deceased was earlier arrested and detained under National Security Act, 1980. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing for the Assam Rifles-respondents, we find that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner's son had been killed by the personnel of 19th Assam Rifles and his dead body was found laying in the hillock of Seijang and Sailen village with marks of gun shot injuries. The only question to be considered is as to whether the deceased son of the petitioner was killed in an encounter or not. It appears from the enquiry report that in course of enquiry 9 (nine) witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner and 6 (six) witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents. P.W.-9 is the petitioner who supported the claim made in this writ petition, in her deposition. 8. Though it was contended by Mr. Rupachandra, learned ASG that there is no evidence with regard to the arrest of the deceased, we find from the deposition of P.Ws-6, 7 and 8 that they had seen the deceased sitting along with one of the 19th Assam Rifles personnel and having conversation at the Sabungkhok Khunou waiting shed. There is no document to show that the deceased had been arrested by the 19th Assam Rifles personnel. Evidence is clear to the effect that the deceased had last been seen sitting along with one 19th personnel of Assam Rifles before his death. There is no document to show that the deceased had been arrested by the 19th Assam Rifles personnel. Evidence is clear to the effect that the deceased had last been seen sitting along with one 19th personnel of Assam Rifles before his death. The stand taken by the respondents is that the deceased was killed in encounter is not based on any documentary evidence. From the evidence we find, that no weapon had been seized from possession of the deceased. Considering the such nature of evidence, learned District Judge, Manipur West came to the conclusion that the deceased had been killed in a stage-managed encounter. We find no reason to discard the enquiry report of the learned District Judge, Manipur West. 9. Having accepted the enquiry report of the learned District Judge, Manipur West, next question comes up for consideration as to what should be the quantum of compensation. It is the case of the petitioner that the deceased was running his own pharmacy and also looked after contract work undertaken by his brother and was earning for family. Therefore, compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been claimed in the writ petition. Considering the age of the deceased, it is evident that he was earning some amount by looking after the contract work undertaken by his brother. With reference to some earlier decisions of this Court, we are of the view that compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- will be appropriate. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner within six months from the date of communication of this order.