Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 10 (MAN)

Mayengbam v. State of Manipur

2018-04-26

KH.NOBIN SINGH, N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT : N. Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard Mr. Th. Ranjit, learned counsel for the petitioner; heard also Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Senior Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed by Smt. Mayengbam (O) Debala Leima, the wife of the deceased, namely, late Mayengbam Biren Meitei, resident of Lamjao Makha Leikai, claiming relief, inter-alia, for payment of compensation to the extent of Rs. 72,00,000/- on account of custodial death of her husband on 02.06.2013. 3. The facts in brief leading to the filing of this petition can be stated as follows. 4. The husband of the petitioner, late Mayengbam Biren Meitei who was about 32 years old at the relevant time was arrested by the personnel of Waikhong Police Station on 31.05.2013 at about 11:00 a.m. and handed over to Moirang Police Station on the same day at 2:30 p.m. by signing a memo dated 31.05.013. It has been stated that the arrest of the aforesaid Biren Meitei was done by the Waikhong Police Station at the request of Moirang Police Station. It has been stated by the petitioner that her husband was arrested in connection with the elopement of one Km. Y. Subadani Devi, D/o. Y. Kalachand Meitei of Thanga Lawai with her husband. The said Subadini Devi was also arrested by the police along with M. Biren Meitei and they were handed over to Moirang Police Station. It has been alleged that after his arrest on 31.05.2013, her husband M. Biren Meitei was brought to the residence of one N. Ibopishak Singh of Moirang and the relatives of her deceased husband were asked to come to the Police Station for negotiation in connection with the aforesaid elopement of Y. Subadini with her husband Biren Meitei. It has been also alleged that several calls were made by the police and other relatives and friends of M. Biren Meitei were also asked to come to the police station for negotiation and compromise relating to the aforesaid elopement. It seems the relatives did not go to the police station. Thereafter, one Smt. M. Amutombi, who is an aunt of Biren Meitei, received a call at about 1:57 p.m. on 02.06.2013 informing her that M. Biren Meitei had suffered from a heart attack and accordingly, the family members of M. Biren Meitei rushed to the Moirang Police Station. It seems the relatives did not go to the police station. Thereafter, one Smt. M. Amutombi, who is an aunt of Biren Meitei, received a call at about 1:57 p.m. on 02.06.2013 informing her that M. Biren Meitei had suffered from a heart attack and accordingly, the family members of M. Biren Meitei rushed to the Moirang Police Station. However, to their shock and surprise, on reaching the police station, they found the said M. Biren Meitiei hanging inside the Lockup of Moirang Police Station with a small piece of/string of woolen shawl torn from a heavy and thick black woolen shawl which was said to had been provided by the Police during their custody. Subsequently, the autopsy was conducted on the dead body which gave the report that cause of death was due to hanging. It is also alleged by the petitioner and the relatives that several marks of torture were noticed on the dead body of said M. Biren Meitei at the time of conducting post mortem. The scrotum was also found to be swollen with severe bruises and blood was found oozing out from the penis in large quantity. At the time of conducting funeral, one of the arms and a leg fell down out of the main body showing signs of bones fractures. Accordingly, it has been alleged that it was a clear case of custodial death due to torture while her husband was in the custody of the police. It has been also stated that her husband was a mason by profession and was earning about Rs. 500/- per day and thus used to earn about Rs. 15,000/- or more per month for maintaining a large family having seven dependants namely,(i) M. Rameshwar, 75 years (father) (ii) M. Amutombi, 70 years (mother)(iii) the petitioner (wife), (iv) M. Sanathoi, 14 years (daughter) (v) M. Chaibi Devi, 12 years (daughter) (vi) M. Thoiba, 8 years (son) and (vii) M. Arepa, 7 months (son). It has been submitted that at the time her husband was only about 32 years old, and was the sole bread earner who could have sustained the family for a long period. However, because of his untimely death, the only source of income was snatched from their family, and accordingly, the petitioner approached this Court for appropriate order for payment of compensation. 5. However, because of his untimely death, the only source of income was snatched from their family, and accordingly, the petitioner approached this Court for appropriate order for payment of compensation. 5. Considering the disputed facts about the circumstances in which the husband of the petitioner died, this Court vide order dated 18.03.2015 had directed for holding an enquiry by the District Judge, Bishnupur and to submit a report. The said enquiry report was conducted after hearing all the parties and the learned District Judge, Bishnupur submitted the enquiry report dated 21.12.2017. The petitioner produced 7 witnesses and exhibited as many as 26 documents; on the other hand, the respondents produced 7 witnesses and also exhibited 9 documents, in support of their respective claims. In course of the enquiry, learned District Judge, Bishnupur framed the following issues- "Issues (i) Whether the deceased Mayengbam Biren Meitei was wrongfully confined by the O.C., Moirang P.S. without registering any FIR case against him and also without producing him before any Magistrate within 24 (twenty-four) hours of his arrest as per law. If so whether the present FIR Case being No. 28 (6) 2013 MRG. P.S. under section 366/368/34 IPC was registered after the death of the deceased? (ii) Whether the deceased M. Biren Meitei was arrested by the police Waikhong P.S. on 31.05.2013 at about 11.00 am. and thereafter he was handed over to the Moirang PS. on the same day at about 2.30 p.m.? (iii) Whether the death of the deceased was caused by homicidal hanging committed by the police of Moirang P.S. on 02.06.2013 after having brutally tortured the deceased on several parts of his body? Or Whether the deceased has committed suicide by hanging himself inside the Moirang Police custody? (iv) Whether the deceased died in the police custody due to the negligence of the Police officer-in-Charge of the Moirang P.S.? (v) Whether the Ligature used for hanging the deceased is a portion of the Naga shawl (thick blanket)? If so, whether the same can easily be tore off from the blanket without the used of any cutter like scissors or blade or any other sharp articles? (vi) Whether Inquest and the Post Mortem was done casually in order to conceal the crime committed by the police. (vii) Whether the information about the death of the deceased was given to his family members in time or not? (vi) Whether Inquest and the Post Mortem was done casually in order to conceal the crime committed by the police. (vii) Whether the information about the death of the deceased was given to his family members in time or not? If not, reason for it?" 6. On appraisal of the evidences and materials on record, the learned District Judge, Bishnupur gave the findings as follows. 6.1 As regards the issues No. 1 and 2, the learned District Judge, Bishnupur held the same to be proved in favour of the petitioner as the testimony of the witnesses of the petitioners were found to be more trustworthy than the testimony of the witnesses of the respondents. Learned District Judge, Bishnupur found on analysis of the oral and the documentary evidences, that it is very clear that Mayengbam Biren Meitei was arrested by the police personnel of the Moirang Police Station on 31.05.2013 at about 2:30 p.m. before the registration of the FIR against the accused person and was taken into custody from the officer-in-charge, Wangoi Police Station and the FIR No. 28 (6) 2013 MRG P.S. under section 368, 34 IPC was registered on 01.06.2013. It was also held that there was no material for showing that after the arrest of said M. Biren Meitei, he was produced before the Magistrate in connection with the FIR. 6.2 As regards the issues No. 3, 4 and 5, learned District Judge, Bishnupur gave the finding that the exhibits clearly show that the deceased M. Biren Meitei had sustained numerous injuries on his body and even on his private parts. Learned District Judge, Bishnupur, also referred to the post mortem report as well as various photographs of the deceased person taken on 02.06.2913 as well as 03.06.2013 which indicated various bruised marks on the left arm, back, thigh, waist, private parts, etc. It was noted that there was none other than the police personnel in the said police station, and the police personnel of the Moirang Police Station were responsible for the death of the deceased while he was under their custody. After appreciating the evidences, it was held by the learned District Judge that the theory of hanging by the accused himself as stated by the police is obviously and palpably false. After appreciating the evidences, it was held by the learned District Judge that the theory of hanging by the accused himself as stated by the police is obviously and palpably false. 6.3 As regards the issues No. 6 and 7, as to whether the postmortem was done casually to conceal the crime committed by the police and whether information of the death was given to the family in time or not, the learned District Judge, Bishnupur decided against the petitioner. 7. Learned District Judge, Bishnupur concluded the enquiry with the finding that the death of late Mayengbam Biren Meitei on 02.06.2013 in the Lockup of Moirang Police Station was due to the injuries inflicted on his body including private parts which was done by the police who subsequently staged the hanging as a case of suicide. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, we are also of the view that the conclusions arrived at by the learned District Judge, Bishnupur are based on material evidences and there is nothing to doubt about the correctness of the conclusions so arrived at. Accordingly, we also held that the petitioner's husband died in the police Lockup while he was in the custody of the Moirang Police Station and the Police were responsible for his death and he did not die by hanging himself as attempted to be made out by the police. 9. Having arrived at the aforesaid conclusion that the petitioner's husband died at the hands of the police, the next issue to be decided is as to what consequential orders can be passed in this case. 10. Mr. Th. Ranjit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that considering the nature of the crime committed by the police and also the fact that the petitioner's husband was the only earning member of the family and his entire family consisting of large number of dependants were depended on the sole income of the petitioner, adequate compensation of not less than Rs. 10,00,000/- be awarded to the petitioner, to be paid by the State Government. 11. We have considered this aspect. 10,00,000/- be awarded to the petitioner, to be paid by the State Government. 11. We have considered this aspect. It is evident from records, as also considered by the learned District Judge, Bishnupur also, about the income from the masonry work of the deceased and also about the dependency of the large number of family members on the income of the deceased husband of the petitioner. The aforesaid plea of the petitioner, as also reiterated in course of the enquiry, has not been challenged by the respondent authorities and accordingly, we also accept the said claim of the petitioner to be reasonable and acceptable one. 12. In that view of the matter, we hold that payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the petitioner by the State respondents would be just and proper in the facts and circumstances revealed in the present case. Accordingly, we do award a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to be paid by the State respondents to the petitioner for the custodial death of her husband, namely late Mayengbam Biren Meitei in the hands of the police personnel of the Moirang police Station on 02.06.2013. At this stage, Mr. RS Reisang, learned Senior Government Advocate, has submitted that while the State Government is under obligation to pay compensation for such death, it would be also appropriate to direct the concerned police personnel to bear the cost for payment of compensation. 13. We are also agreeable in the principle to the said submission made by the learned Senior Government Advocate that the State Government may not be saddled with the financial burden on account of illegal acts of its agents. However, we leave it to the State authorities to ascertain as to how much amount is to be borne by each of the police personnel involved and responsible for the death of the petitioner's husband by holding necessary departmental enquiry in this regard. Apart from recovery of the proportionate amounts from the police personnel concerned, appropriate penalty/punishment in terms of the relevant service rules may be also imposed on the erring police personnel. 14. The finding returned by the Ld. District and Sessions Judge, Bishnupur is shocking to say the least. The police personnel who are mandated to uphold rule of law and protect the rights of the citizens are found brazenly violating the same. Such deliberate acts on the part of the police personnel cannot be countenanced. 14. The finding returned by the Ld. District and Sessions Judge, Bishnupur is shocking to say the least. The police personnel who are mandated to uphold rule of law and protect the rights of the citizens are found brazenly violating the same. Such deliberate acts on the part of the police personnel cannot be countenanced. The protectors of rights of citizens, enforcers of law and upholders of rule of law cannot be transgressors of rights and liberties of the citizens. Therefore, we direct that not only necessary departmental proceedings be initiated against those, including the police personnel responsible for the custodial death of late M. Biren Meitei, the husband of the petitioner and impose appropriate penalty/punishment and recover from the responsible personnel proportionate to their roles in the incident, towards the compensation amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- imposed by this Court, but also initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against such responsible persons for committing offences for causing death of the petitioner's husband under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. 15. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- is to be deposited to the Registry of this High Court which will be withdrawn by the petitioner after being properly identified. We have also noted that at the relevant time the petitioner's husband had left behind (i) M. Rameshwar, 75 years (father) (ii) M. Amutombi, 70 years (mother) (iii) the petitioner (wife), (iv) M. Sanathoi, 14 years (daughter) (v) M. Chaibi Devi, 12 years (daughter) (vi) M. Thoiba, 8 years (son) and (vii) M. Arepa, 7 months (son). Since the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been awarded considering the fact that a large number of family members were dependent on the income of petitioner's husband, we will require the petitioner to submit a financial plan as to how she proposes to spend the aforesaid compensation amount. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited by the State respondents within a period of 4 (four) months from today; and the petitioner will submit the financial plan to the Registry of this Court within 2 (two) months from today before the petitioner is allowed to withdraw the said amount. 16. The present petition stands disposed with the above observations and directions. 17. 16. The present petition stands disposed with the above observations and directions. 17. Though this petition is disposed of in terms of the observations and directions mentioned above, the matter be listed after 4 (four) months with a note from the Registry about the compliance of this order.