Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 114 (MAN)

Saikhom Ongbi Senu Devi v. Union of India

2014-09-10

LAXMI KANTA MOHAPATRA, N.KOSIWAR SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra; CJ.:- Heard Mr. M. Rakesh Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Mr. Amarjit Naorem, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the respondents-Union of India. 2. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1203 of 2005 is the father of late Master Sanasam Ngongo Singh, aged about 12 years and petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1201 of 2005 is the mother of late Saikhom Samungou Singh, aged about 20 years. Both the deceased persons are alleged by the petitioners to have been killed by the Manipur Police Commandos, Troops of HQ 9 Sector Assam Rifles, 21 PARA and 28 Assam Rifles on 10.01.2005 at Bungbal Khullen Village. Both the writ petitions have been filed for payment of compensation on the ground that the two deceased persons were picked up by the respondents and were killed. Since both the deceased persons died in the same incident, at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondents, these two writ petitions were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.01.2005 at about 9 AM, deceased Saikhom Shamungou Singh along with his brother-in-law, i.e. other deceased Master Sanasam Ngongo Singh, had gone towards Wakchinglok and Bungbal Khullen hill range to search for Ngongo's family buffalos. Few hours later, at about 11 AM sound of gun firing was heard in the hill range. When the deceased persons did not return home till late, the petitioners and their relatives along with some villagers went in search of them but could not find them. The Pradhan of Nongbrang Village made an inquiry from the Yairipok Police Station over telephone but Police could give any information. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Thoubal was contacted who informed that he had received information about death of 3(three) UNLF cadres in an encounter during the operation in Bungbal Khullen carried out by a combined force. On the next day, the petitioners went to the Yairipok P.S. and found bullet ridden dead bodies of both deceased persons along with another. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Thoubal was contacted who informed that he had received information about death of 3(three) UNLF cadres in an encounter during the operation in Bungbal Khullen carried out by a combined force. On the next day, the petitioners went to the Yairipok P.S. and found bullet ridden dead bodies of both deceased persons along with another. On the next day, i.e. on 11.01.2015 at about 10:30 AM one personnel of 21 PARA had lodged a written report to the Officer-in-Charge, Yairipok P.S. that a joint operation with Manipur Police Commandos and Troops of HQ 9 Sector Assam Rifles was launched consisting of 21 PARA and 28th Assam Rifles on 10.01.2005. An encounter took place with the militants in the Jungle area and 3 militants belonging to UNLF were killed in the encounter. On the basis of such report, FIR No. 03 (01)05 Yairipok P.S. was registered. On 11.01.2005 at about 4 PM post-mortem examination of the dead bodies was conducted at Lilong Murtuary by the Chief Medical Officer, Thoubal. It is the case of the petitioners that the two deceased persons were not members of any banned organization and they were killed by the respondents in a fake encounter. 3.1. The stand taken by the respondents is that both the deceased persons were members of a banned organisation UNLF and they died in a fire fight with the security forces near Jungle of old Bungbal Khullen. They were carrying bags on their back and were moving with a column of militants when the fire fight took place. After the encounter when search was made, the bag was found to be containing explosives and hand grenades. 4. After consideration of these facts, the Court had directed an enquiry to be conducted by the learned District Manipur West and in compliance of the said order, the learned District Judge has submitted a report on 29.6.2013. It is the finding of the learned District Judge that the combined security force in general and personnel of 21 PARA in particular are responsible in killing of the said two deceased persons and there is no evidence of an encounter having taken place at the place of occurrence between the two deceased persons and the combined security forces. It is the finding of the learned District Judge that the combined security force in general and personnel of 21 PARA in particular are responsible in killing of the said two deceased persons and there is no evidence of an encounter having taken place at the place of occurrence between the two deceased persons and the combined security forces. The relevant paragraphs of the report are quoted below: "67) Cause of death was internal bleeding following multiple bullets injuries leading to shock and death. Death occurred within 48 hours from examination. Injuries were anti mortem in nature. Death was instantaneous. 68) The evidence on record supported by the inquest examination finding of RW-3 and medical report Ext-A/11 and medical opinion of the doctor PW-8, established that the two boys Sanasam Ngongo Singh and Saikhom Samungou Singh died of multiple bullet injuries. 69) However, there is no evidence of a firing encounter having taken place on 10.01.2005 at the place of occurrence between the combined security force and alleged militants. 70) Accordingly, issue No. 3 is decided as follows that Samungou and Ngongo have been killed by the personnel of 21 PARA. However there is no evidence of a firing encounter having taken place at the place of occurrence between the combined security force and alleged militants. ISSUE No. 4: Whether the said Samungou and Ngongo are innocent villagers? 71) On the basis of the findings, in issue No. 1 and 2, this issue is decided in the positive. ISSUE No. 5: Is there any justification for the killing of the two persons (above)? 72) On the basis of the findings in the above issues, this issue is decided in the negative. 73) In the conclusion, on the basis of the findings in the above issues, the combined security force in general and in particular the personnel of 21 PARA are responsible in the killing of the said two boys i.e. Saikhom Samungou Singh and Sanasam Ngongo Singh." 5. Though no objection has been filed to the enquiry report, Mr. Amarjit Naorem, learned CGSC appearing for the respondents submitted that evidence having been adduced before the Enquiry Officer in support of the stand taken by the respondents, there was no reason on the part of the learned District Judge who discarded the same. Mr. Though no objection has been filed to the enquiry report, Mr. Amarjit Naorem, learned CGSC appearing for the respondents submitted that evidence having been adduced before the Enquiry Officer in support of the stand taken by the respondents, there was no reason on the part of the learned District Judge who discarded the same. Mr. M. Rakesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the report and submitted that the learned District Judge having come to a specific finding that there was no encounter between the two deceased persons and the combined security forces and that both the deceased persons were killed by the combined security forces, the petitioners are entitled to compensation. 6. We have carefully examined the report of the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge framed 3(three) relevant issues, such as whether the deceased persons had gone towards Wakchinglock and Bungbal Khullen hill range on 10.01.2005 in search of family buffaloes and as to whether both the deceased persons are members of UNLF and as to whether the two deceased persons were killed by the 21 PARA on 10.01.2005 in the jungle of Bungbal Khullen village in an encounter or not. It further appears that 8(eight) witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioners and 3(three) witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents. On analysis of the evidence adduced, the learned District Judge has come to the conclusion as quoted above. The learned District Judge has given reasons for not accepting the stand taken by the respondents. In course of enquiry Mr. Amarjit Naorem, learned CGSC has not been able to place anything from the report on the basis of which it can be said that the stand taken by the respondents was more probable. Having found that the learned District Judge has correctly analysed the evidence and come to the conclusion, we have no reason to differ with the said conclusion. 7. Having accepted the report of the learned District Judge, the next question that comes up for consideration is with regard to the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners. Out of the two deceased persons one was small boy of 12 years of age and other one was only 20 years of age. 7. Having accepted the report of the learned District Judge, the next question that comes up for consideration is with regard to the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners. Out of the two deceased persons one was small boy of 12 years of age and other one was only 20 years of age. From the report of the learned District Judge, it appears both the deceased persons were unarmed and had gone to the jungle in search of the family buffaloes. The combined security force specifically personnel of 21 PARA, killed them in the jungle and gave it a colour of encounter. Considering the age of both the deceased persons and fact that they were not earning members of the respective families, we are of the view that payment of compensation of Rs. 5.00 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs) to each of the petitioners would be proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, we allow both the writ petitions and direct, considering the findings of the learned District Judge that the Officers of 21 PARA were mainly responsible for such killing, out of the compensation, 70% shall be paid by the respondents 1,4,4 & 6 and 30% of the compensation shall be paid by the respondents 7,8,9 & 10. The compensation to each of the petitioners as directed be paid within 3(three) months from the date of communication of this judgment and order. In the event, if the petitioners are not satisfied with the compensation allowed, it will be open for them to approach the competent civil court and establish a case for higher compensation. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of. ____________