THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR"

Jeffry Perry
5 years ago
Views:

1 THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL 1. W.P (C) NO OF Shri Gurumayum Sanahal Sharma, aged about 32 years. 2. Shri Gurumayum Bisharup Sharma, aged about 30 years. 3. Shri Gurumayum Brajamohon Sharma, aged about 26 years. 4. Shri Gurumayum Sharatchandra Sharma, aged about 23 years. 5. Shri Gurumayum Shyamkanhai Sharma, aged about 14 years. 6. Shri Gurumayum Sanathoi Sharma, aged about 13 years. All sons of late Smt. Padma Devi(the petitioner) of Lairenjam Mayai Laikai, Post Office and Police Station Nambol, District Bishnupur, Manipur, (Petitioner Nos. 5 & 6 being minors are represented by their eldest brother Shri Gurumayum Sanahal Sharma, the petitioner No.1). Vide order dtd passed in MC(W.P(C) No.93/96, the L.Rs of the writ petitioner are impleaded as petitioners. Petitioners. of Home Affairs, Govt. of India North Block, New Delhi.(Vide order dated passed in MC(W.P(C) No.271 of 2012). WP( C)No.1267/2002 & group Page 1

2 2. W.P (C) NO OF 2002 Shri Soibam Apabee Singh, aged about 60 Years, S/o late S. Mera Singh, resident of Malom Tulihal, Post Office Tulihal and Police Station Nambol, District Imphal West, Manipur. Petitioner. of Defence, Govt. of India North Block, New Delhi.(Vide order dated passed in MC(W.P(C) No.271 of 2012) 3. W.P (C) NO OF Smt. Kshetrimayum Ongbi Subadani Devi aged about 54 years, w/o late Ksh. Ibochou Singh. 2. Shri Kshetrimayum Manglemba Singh aged about 28 years S/o of late Ksh. Ibochou Singh. WP( C)No.1267/2002 & group Page 2

3 3. Shri Kshetrimayum Japan Singh, aged about 21 years S/o late Ksh. Ibochou Singh. All of Malom Tulihal, Post Office and Police Station, Nambol, District Inphal West, Manipur. Vide order dtd passed in MC(W.P(C) No.92/2006, the L.Rs are impleaded as petitioners. Petitioners. Home Affairs, Govt. of India North Block, New Delhi. 4. W.P (C) NO OF 2002 Shri Leishangbam Tomba Singh, aged about 66 years, S/o late L. Tonsana Singh, resident of Kabo Wakching Mayai Leikai, Post Office and Police Station Nambol, District Bishnupur, Manipur. Petitioner. WP( C)No.1267/2002 & group Page 3

4 of Defence, Govt. of India North Block, New Delhi.(Vide order dated passed in MC(W.P(C) No.265 of 2012). 5. W.P (C) NO OF 2002 Smt. Sinam Ongbi Chandrajini Devi, aged about 46 years, W/o late S. Tonu Singh of Malom Tulihal Makha Leikai, Post Office Tulihal, Police Station Nambol, District Imphal West, Manipur. Petitioner. of Defence, Govt. of India North Block, New Delhi.(Vide order dated passed in MC(W.P(C) No.264 of 2012). WP( C)No.1267/2002 & group Page 4

5 6. W.P (C) NO OF 2002 Smt. Oinam Ongbi Ibetombi Devi, aged about 37 years W/o late O. Sanatomba Singh, resident of Nambol Naorem Makha Leikai, Police Station Nambol, District Bishnupur, Manipur. Petitioner. of Defence, Govt. of India North Block, New Delhi.(Vide order dated passed in MC(W.P(C) No.270 of 2012) 7. W.P (C) NO OF 2002 Smt. Kangujam Ongbi Memcha Devi, aged about 27 years, W/o late K. Bijoy Singh of Leimapokpam Makha Leikai, Post Office and Police Station Nambol, District, Bishnupur, Manipur. Petitioner. WP( C)No.1267/2002 & group Page 5

6 of Defence, Govt. of India North Block, New Delhi.(Vide order dated passed in MC(W.P(C) No.266 of 2012). 8. W.P (C) NO OF 2002 Smt. Amakcham Ongbi Prabati Devi, aged about 28 years, W/o late A. Raghumani Singh, resident of Nambol Naorem Awang Leikai, Police Station Nambol, District Bishnupur, Manipur. Petitioner. of Defence, Govt. of India North Block, New Delhi. WP( C)No.1267/2002 & group Page 6

7 9. W.P (C) NO OF 2002 Shri Tokpam Somorendra Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o late T. Chaoyaima Singh of Malom Tulihal, Police Station Nambol, District Imphal,West, Manipur. Petitioner. of Defence, Govt. of India North Block, New Delhi.(Vide order dated passed in MC(W.P(C) No.263 of 2012). WP( C)No.1267/2002 & group Page 7

8 BEFORE HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH For the Petitioner For the respondents :: Mr. S. Lakhikanta, Advocate :: Mr. R.S. Reisang, Sr. G A & Mr. S. Rupachandra, ASG. Date of hearing :: Date of Judgment & Order. :: JUDGMENT & ORDER CJ These nine Writ Applications were clubbed together for hearing on the request of the learned counsel appearing for the parties considering the fact that the prayer in all the writ petitions is for payment of compensation on allegation that ten civilians were killed by the personnel of 8 th Bn. Assam Rifles in an incident which occurred on at Malom Boroi Makhong, Tiddim Road, Imphal West. Since all the cases relate to the same incident in which ten civilians died, an enquiry was conducted by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Manipur East under order of the High Court and report has been submitted. Therefore, all the cases were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of in this common judgment and order. When these cases were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing for the Union of India and Assam Rifles were asked as to whether they have any objection for hearing these cases by this Bench since one of us, Hon ble Mr. Justice Kh. Nobin Singh, prior to elevation was Additional Advocate General for the State Manipur and was representing the State as Standing Counsel for the State of Manipur before the WP( C)No.1267/2002 & group Page 8

9 Supreme Court in a batch of similar cases. Since the learned counsel appearing for the parties did not have any objection for hearing of the writ petitions by this Bench, we heard the cases on merit. [2] In WP(C) No of 2002, the petitioner is the father of late S. Prakash Singh who was killed in the said incident. The deceased son of the petitioner was only 13 years of age and was prosecuting his study in Class-XI. [2.1] In WP(C) No. 1268/02 the petitioner is the father of deceased Kshetrimayum Inaocha Singh who was also killed at the same place where son of the petitioner in WP(C) No.1267/02 was killed. The deceased son of the petitioner of this case was aged about 23 years and was a Goldsmith by occupation. It is alleged by the petitioner in WP(C) No.1267/02 that his son Prakash Singh along with the deceased son of the petitioner in WP(C)No.1268/02 had gone to the college for submission of examination form on on a two wheeler. After submitting the examination form, deceased Prakash Singh went to Mekola village to meet some of his friends. At about 3:30 p.m. when the above two deceased boys were talking to each other, they heard a sound of explosion and continuous sound of gun firing from Tulihal village side for about 10 minutes. After the firing stopped, both of them came towards their village and while they were proceeding along Chingphu road which connects approach road of Tulihal Makha Leikai from Tiddim Road, they came across a group of army personnel at the adjoining point of Meitram village and Malom Tulihal Village. There were neither pedestrians nor vehicle traffic on the Chingphu road. The army personnel stopped them. Both the deceased introduced themselves as students. It is further WP( C)No.1267/2002 & group Page 9

10 alleged that the army personnel without making any verification, shot them at the spot and after the entire incident was over, their dead bodies were found on Tulihal Makha Leikai road on the eastern edge of a small bridge known as Makhong Thong. [2.2] The case of the petitioner in WP(C) No.1273 of 2002 is that her husband had been engaged to do harvesting work on by one Chabungbam Biren Singh of Malom Bazar at his paddy field located at or near Malom Boroi Makhong. At about 3 PM, after completing harvesting work, when her husband was washing himself at a pond and waiting for a friend, suddenly a bomb exploded at about 3:20 p.m. on the eastern edge of Tiddim Road at a distance of about 1:30 ft. on the northeast of the said tomb on which he was leaning. The explosion took place when army vehicles were passing on the road. Immediately after explosion of the bomb, the army personnel got down from the vehicles and scattered themselves on the road in combat position. On hearing sound of the explosion, all those who were on two wheelers stopped on the road and remained in their respective places. On the plea that extremists were attacking them, the army personnel started looking for suspicious elements on both sides of the road, but did not find any civilian in the vicinity of the site of explosion except those who were travelling in two wheelers. The army personnel ordered 5 occupants of the 3 two wheelers to proceed upto the bus stand on gun point including one old woman and suddenly opened fire and killed all the five of them. In course of such firing, the two school boys who were near the Bus stand were also killed. Thereafter, army personnel started combing the area and one of them located the petitioner s husband standing behind the tomb. The husband of the petitioner raised hands up and stood motionless. However, the army personnel rushed WP( C)No.1267/2002 & group Page 10

11 towards him and one of them dragged him upto Tiddim road and shot him dead. [2.3] The petitioner in WP(C)No. 1266/2002 alleges that in the same incident her husband, Gurumayum Bapu Sharma was shot dead near the public Bus Stand and that her husband was serving as Mandol in the Directorate of Settlement & Land Record, Govt. of Manipur. Repeating the same incident, she alleges that her deceased husband was one of those five persons who had been picked up by the army personnel and killed. [2.4] The petitioner in WP(C) No.1272/02 also alleges killing of her husband in the same incident while her deceased husband was coming back from his office in a two wheeler. Her deceased husband appears to be one of those seven persons who were killed near the Bus Stand. The petitioner in WP(C) No.1269 of 2002 alleges killing of his wife, Sana Devi, who was among those seven persons. [2.5] The petitioner in WP(C) No.1270 of 2002 is an unfortunate woman who lost both his sons, namely Sinam Robin Singh and Sinam Chandramani Singh. In the said incident while both the sons were standing near the Bus stand, they were killed by the army personnel. [2.6] The petitioner in WP(C) No. 1271/2002 also lost her husband in the said incident and her deceased husband was working as Mandyman in the Directorate of Food & Civil Supplies, Govt. of Manipur. WP( C)No.1267/2002 & group Page 11

12 [2.7] In WP(C) No of 2002 the petitioner is the father of deceased Tokpam Shantikumar Singh, who was also shot dead in the said incident. [3] The stand taken by the respondents in the enquiry was that on at about 3.20 p.m. a column of vehicles consisting of three vehicles left the Unit Technical HQs and was proceeding to Churachandpur road. An improvised explosive device was exploded by the undergrounds near the vehicle of the column followed by heavy volume of indiscriminate firing in the area of Malom Makha Leikai on the eastern side of the road. The last vehicle of the column narrowly escaped the full impact of the blast. However, its body was bullet ridden on the left side. The troop carried out swift counter ambush and returned fire towards the undergrounds located on the east of the road in self defence. Two jawans sustained gun shot injuries due to the firing from the side of the undergrounds. It is also the stand of the respondents that the undergrounds fired indiscriminately from the east side of the road towards the vehicle column and also hit the civilians who were waiting near the local Bus shed on the western side of the road. After the firing was over, when search was conducted in the area along with state police, two dead bodies were found near the ambush site wherefrom the militants were firing and eight dead bodies of the civilians including one woman were found in the vicinity of the Bus stand on the western side of the road. Some arms and ammunitions were also seized from the place and report was submitted before the Officer in-charge of Nambol Police Station. From the stand taken by the respondents, it appears that they have put the blame on the undergrounds who are alleged WP( C)No.1267/2002 & group Page 12

13 to have exploded the bomb and fired on the Assam Rifles personnel. [4] On consideration of the pleadings, the learned District Judge framed five issues. [5] From the report, it appears that eighteen witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioners and three witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents. On consideration of the evidence, the learned District Judge came to the following conclusion: 41.In the circumstances, it is obvious that there was no cross-firing on at around 3.30 p.m. at Malom Boroi Makhong and Chingphu road in between Malom Tulihal village and Meitram village near Malom Terakha between the insurgents and the personnel of 8 th Bn. Assam Rifles. As such, there is no question of starting of firing guns by the insurgents against the Assam Rifles personnel on that day. Instead there are ample evidence of indiscriminate firing of guns by the personnel of 8 th Bn. Assam Rifles at Malom Area on killing 10(ten) innocent persons namely, (1) Soibam Prakash Singh, (2) Kshetrimayum Inaocha alias Inaocha Singh at Chingphu road in between Malom Tulihal village and Meitram Village near Malom Terakha and (3) Amakcham Raghumani Singh, (4) Gurumayum Bapu Sharma, (5) Kangujam Bijoy Singh, (6) Laishangbam Sana Devi, (7) Sinam Robin Singh, (8) Sinam Chandramani Singh, (9) Oinam Sanatomba Singh and (10) Tokpam Shantikumar Singh at Malom Boroi Makhong of which one dead body was found lying on the western side of the main road on the northern side of the bridge while two dead bodies lying inside and 5 dead bodies lying in front of the public bus stand located on the western side of Tiddim Road. Thus, the said firing by the Assam Rifles personnel have resulted to the death of 10(ten) innocent persons and the firing was done by the Assam Rifles personnel of 8 th Bn. Assam Rifles led by WP( C)No.1267/2002 & group Page 13

14 Commander Major George in utter disregard of human values. [6] Shri S. Lakhikanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the cases, relying on the enquiry report, submitted that the eye witnesses examined in course of the enquiry clearly prove that Assam Rifles personnel picked up civilians who were standing on the road after the bomb got exploded and killed them mercilessly. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the report of the learned District Judge should be accepted and adequate compensation should be directed to be paid to all the petitioners. [7] Shri S. Rupachandra, learned counsel appearing for the Central Government as well as for the Assam Rifles submitted that the report of the learned District Judge should not be accepted as admittedly there was an explosion of bomb when the vehicle column was moving on the road and there was firing from the side of the undergrounds which was retaliated by the Assam Rifle personnel. In course of such firing and cross-firing if some civilians have died, the Assam Rifles cannot be held responsible for their death and no compensation should be directed to be paid to the petitioners. [8] We have carefully gone through the enquiry report running into 69 pages dealing with the evidence adduced before the learned District Judge. In order to find out the correctness of the finding arrived at by the learned District Judge in course of the enquiry, we would like to refer to the evidence of the eye witnesses who were present at the spot. WP( C)No.1267/2002 & group Page 14

15 [9] PW-9 is an eye witness to the occurrence and she is also the petitioner in WP(C) No.1268/2002. She stated in her deposition that she, her husband and their daughter were working on that day in their paddy field located in the western side of the Tiddim road. In the evening they saw three Army vehicles approaching from the northern side towards south on the Tiddim road in a row. When the Army vehicle were negotiating the bridge located near the public Bus stand, she heard a loud sound of bomb explosion from the eastern portion of the Tiddim road and also saw dust and smoke blown up by impact of the explosion. At the time of the explosion, the first army vehicle had already crossed the bridge near Malom Boroi Makhong while the second army vehicle was near the public Bus stand. The third vehicle was just behind the 2 nd near about the Bus stand. She further stated that at the time of explosion, all the three army vehicles had crossed the site of the explosion. She also saw two- three 2(two) wheelers on the road near the site of the explosion. Immediately after the explosion, all the three army vehicles stopped and the army personnel got down from the vehicles and scattered around the place. Thereafter, they rounded off civilians who were found nearby as well as those who were on the two wheelers. Those civilians who had been rounded off were taken to the public Bus stand. Thereafter, she heard burst of gun sound from the Waiting Shed area. There were many other villagers involved in the harvesting work at the paddy fields at the relevant time. Hearing the gun sound, she started running here and there. She, her husband and daughter also started running towards their house. After coming back home, they did not find their son and later on came to know that their son was also killed in the said incident. WP( C)No.1267/2002 & group Page 15

16 [10] PW 2 is another eye witness, who was also working in the paddy field near the place of occurrence and corroborates the evidence of PW-9. [10.1] PW-14 is another eye witness who stated that half an hour after the explosion, while she was coming towards her house from the paddy field, she saw deceased Prakash and Inaocha coming in a two wheelers and being fired upon by the army personnel. [10.2] PW-13 has also corroborated the evidence of PW-14. The Doctors who conducted post mortem of the dead bodies, such as PWs- 11, 13 and 18 have also proved that all the deceased persons died of bullet injuries. When such is the evidence from the side of the petitioners, the respondents examined three witnesses in order to prove their stand that there was cross-firing between the personnel of Assam Rifles and the undergrounds and in course of such cross-firing ten persons expired. [11] We have also gone through the evidence of three witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents and on analysis of their evidence, we find that though explosion of bomb on the road is not in dispute, the claim of cross-firing between the Assam Rifles personnel and the undergrounds is not proved. The evidence of RW-2 creates a doubt as to whether there was any such cross-firing between the personnel of Assam Rifles and the so-called underground members. [12] The learned District Judge, therefore, came to the right conclusion that there was no firing or cross-firing in between the personnel of Assam Rifles and the underground members and WP( C)No.1267/2002 & group Page 16

17 all the ten persons were killed by the personnel of Assam Rifles without any reason. Since we find no justification to disagree with the findings arrived at by the learned District Judge, the next question for consideration is what should be the quantum of compensation. [13] In exercise of writ jurisdiction specially in absence of evidence, it may not be possible on the part of the Court to assess exact compensation to be paid to the petitioners. The evidence available on record only indicates the age of the deceased persons and their avocation. In absence of evidence with regard to loss of income, contribution to the family etc. the appropriate compensation payable cannot be assessed. We are, therefore, of the view that lump sum compensation of Rs.5 lakh (Rupees Five Lakh) for each death would be just and proper though it would be open for the petitioners to establish a case for higher compensation in a competent civil court. Consequently, we allow the writ petitions and direct that all the petitioners, except the petitioner in WP(C) No.1270/2002, be paid compensation of Rs.5 lakh each. So far as the petitioner in WP(C) No.1270/2002 is concerned, she having lost both her sons, we direct that she be paid compensation of Rs.10 lakh (Rupees Ten Lakh). The compensation as directed be paid to the petitioners within a period of 4(four) months from the date of communication of this order. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Joy WP( C)No.1267/2002 & group Page 17

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.

1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.168/2004 APPELLANTS 1. Md Kurban Ali, S/o- Mofed Ali, Resident