Manipur High Court
Shri Khumanthem Nagor Singh vs State Of Manipur on 21 July, 2022
KABORA Digitally signed
by Item No. 3
MBAM KABORAMBAM
SANDEE SANDEEP SINGH
P SINGH
Date: 2022.07.26
17:08:01 +05'30' IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.P. (C) No. 496 of 2019
Shri Khumanthem Nagor Singh, aged about 76 years,
S/o late Kh. Ibomcha Singh, a resident of Karong Mamang
Leikai, P.O. - Langjing, P.S. Patsoi, Imphal West District,
Manipur, PIN - 795113.
Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Manipur, through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur, Pin-795001.
2. The Director General of Police, Manipur,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur, PIN- 795001.
3. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110001.
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN
For the petitioner : Mr. M. Rakesh, Advocate
For respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. RK Umakanta, Government Advocate
For respondent No. 3 : Mr. W. Darakishwor, Sr. PCCG
Date of Order : 21.07.2022
W.P. (C) No. 496 of 2019 Page 1
ORDER (ORAL)
Sanjay Kumar (C.J.):
[1] The petitioner is the father of Khundrakpam Ajitkumar Singh @
Naoba Singh, a young man of just 20 years of age, who met with an untimely
death on the intervening night of 14th and 15th March, 2004. By way of this writ
petition, he seeks a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to
investigate into the killing of his son by armed forces personnel. In furtherance
thereof, he seeks a direction to the State authorities to hand over to the CBI the
records pertaining to FIR No. 9(3)04 on the file of Patsoi Police Station, registered
under Sections 302 and 34 IPC along with Section 25 (I-)C of the Arms Act, 1959.
[2] Heard Mr. M. Rakesh, learned counsel for the petitioner;
Mr. RK Umakanta, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State
authorities; and Mr. W. Darakishwor, learned Sr. PCCG, appearing for the CBI.
[3] FIR No. 19(3)04 Sekmai P.S. was registered under Sections 121,
121-A and 307 IPC read with Sections 10 & 13 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967, and Section 25 (1-B) of the Arms Act, 1959, against the
petitioner's son upon the complaint made by the armed forces. However, a
final/closure report was submitted leading to the closure of this case on
24.04.2006. Upon the complaint made by the petitioner to the Officer-in-Charge
of Patsoi Police Station, FIR No. 9(3)2004 was registered under Sections 302 and
34 IPC read with Section 25 (1-C) of the Arms Act, 1959.
The complaint of the petitioner, presently, is that no action has
been taken till date to arrest the culprits who were responsible for the wrongful
death of his son and to hold them accountable.
W.P. (C) No. 496 of 2019 Page 2
[4] Significantly, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P. (Crl.) No. 31 of
2008 before the Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court seeking compensation
for the wrongful death of his son at the hands of the personnel of 19th Rajput
Rifles (Bikaner), stationed at Leimakhong. By order dated 13.01.2009 passed
therein, the Court directed an enquiry to be made by the learned District Judge,
Manipur East, to ascertain the circumstances of the petitioner's son's death. Upon
completion of the enquiry, Report dated 28.06.2012 was submitted by the
learned District Judge, Manipur East. Therein, he stated in no uncertain terms
that the petitioner's son was picked up from the residence on the fateful night by
the personnel of 19th Rajput Rifles and was killed by them at about 03:00 am on
15.03.2004 at Khurkhul-Sekmai Road, while in custody. The learned District
Judge also found that there was no exchange of fire or an 'encounter' with the
personnel of 19th Rajput Rifles, as claimed by them.
After establishment of the High Court of Manipur in the year 2013,
the said writ petition was made over to this Court. A Division Bench of this Court
disposed of the writ petition, vide judgment and order dated 07.09.2017. The
Bench accepted the findings recorded in the Report dated 28.06.2012 and held
that the personnel of 19th Rajput Rifles (Bikaner) were responsible for the death
of the petitioner's son and that his fundamental right to life, guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution, had been violated as he died, while in their custody,
without due process of law. The Union of India was accordingly directed to pay a
sum of ₹. 5,00,000/- to the petitioner for the wrongful death of his son. The
Division Bench observed that in so far as the prayer of the petitioner for an
investigation by an independent agency against the erring personnel was
concerned, he was at liberty to approach the competent forum.
W.P. (C) No. 496 of 2019 Page 3
This judgment attained finality and was also implemented without
further ado by the Union of India, by paying compensation along with interest
thereon, amounting to ₹. 5,63,750/-, in February, 2019.
[5] It is relevant to note that during the enquiry held by the learned
District Judge, Manipur East, the names of some of the personnel who were
actually involved in the incident that led to the death of the petitioner's son were
duly identified. Three personnel of 19th Rajput Rifles, viz, Dalchand, Nabab Singh
Bundela and Sunil Singh deposed before the learned District Judge that their
team was led by Major AK Singh and that they killed the petitioner's son at about
3:00 am on 15.03.2004 at Khurkhul-Sekmai Road. Despite the same, it appears
that no action was taken against any of those involved in this dastardly act. It is
in these circumstances that the petitioner now seeks a direction to the State
authorities to hand over the investigation of the case to the CBI with a further
direction to the CBI to do the needful and bring the wrongdoers to book.
[6] At this stage, it may be noted that the Government of Manipur
actually initiated steps to bring in the CBI to investigate this case in the year 2004
itself, shortly after this heinous incident. By Notification dated 18.03.2004, the
Joint Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, was pleased to accord consent
to extension of powers and jurisdiction to the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment in the whole of the State of Manipur to carry out investigation in
FIR No. 9(3)2004 Patsoi PS, relating to the killing of the petitioner's son.
However, by letter dated 15.06.2004, the CBI declined to do so.
[7] The CBI filed an affidavit-in-opposition in August, 2019. Therein, the
Superintendent of Police, In-Charge and Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Imphal,
W.P. (C) No. 496 of 2019 Page 4
stated that the Investigating Officers of the two FIRs that had been registered in
connection with this incident had miserably failed to take the matter forward to
its logical conclusion for initiation of criminal proceedings against the personnel of
19th Rajput Rifles. He referred to the Notification dated 18.03.2004 of the Joint
Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, and stated that the CBI had declined
to take over the investigation of the case, vide letter dated 15.06.2004, as the
case was local in nature, having no interstate or international ramifications,
warranting a CBI investigation. He reiterated this stand and asserted that no
cause was made out for the CBI to come into the picture.
[8] The State authorities filed a reply through the Inspector General of
Police (Admn.), Manipur. Therein, he stated that the Superintendent of Police,
Imphal West District, Manipur, had addressed letter dated 05.11.2021 to the
Director General of Police, Manipur, informing him that Requisition dated
19.05.2021 had been sent to the General Officer Commanding (GOC),
57 Mountain Division, Leimakhong, Manipur, requesting for details of the present
posting of Major AK Singh of 19th Rajput Rifles, Leimakhong, and the other
personnel who were involved in the incident in the year 2004. However, it
appears that there was no response thereto and the Superintendent of Police
stated that the investigation could not be brought to a conclusion and the case
was kept pending for want of examination of Major AK Singh and the other
personnel of 19th Rajput Rifles. The Inspector General stated that the case was
still pending for want of examination of Major AK Singh and other personnel of
19th Rajput Rifles who were involved in the killing of the petitioner's son.
W.P. (C) No. 496 of 2019 Page 5
[9] In his rejoinder to this reply of the State authorities, the petitioner
stated that the Investigating Officers of the State police had failed miserably in
carrying out investigation despite lapse of more than 17 years since the incident,
as they did not take recourse to all the means legally available to them to secure
the presence of the armed forces personnel who were responsible. He further
pointed out that, till date, the Investigating Officers had not even clearly
identified the persons involved in the crime. He reiterated that, to have an
effective investigation, it would be necessary to involve the CBI, the premier
investigating agency in the country, as the State police had limited powers and
jurisdiction in relation to armed forces personnel.
[10] In his separate rejoinder to the reply filed by the CBI, the petitioner
stated that the refusal by the CBI to take on this case on the ground that it did
not involve interstate or international ramifications was not a valid reason. He
pointed out that the Allahabad High Court had held that the CBI could be
entrusted with investigation of a crime even if the case did not have interstate or
international ramifications. He asserted that the decision for an investigation by
the CBI has to be taken depending on the attending facts and circumstances and
to eliminate possibility of bias or influence. He reiterated that transferring the
investigation from the Manipur police to the CBI would be the only viable means
for him to secure justice for his son at least at this late stage.
[11] It would be apposite at this stage to take note of precedential law
on the subject. In R.S. Sodhi, Advocate Vs. State of U.P. and others [1994
Supp (1) SCC 143], the Supreme Court was dealing with 'encounters' between
local police and militants and observed that whether the loss of life was on
W.P. (C) No. 496 of 2019 Page 6
account of a genuine or a fake encounter is a matter which has to be enquired
into and investigated closely. As accusations were directed against the local police
personnel, the Supreme Court held that it would be desirable to entrust the
investigation to an independent agency like the CBI so that all concerned may be
assured that an independent agency is looking into the matter and the same
would lend credibility to the final outcome of the investigation.
Again, in State of West Bengal and others Vs. Committee for
Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, and others [(2010) 3
SCC 571], the Supreme Court held that a direction by the High Court, in exercise
of writ jurisdiction, to the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence committed
within the territory of a State, even without the consent of that State, would
neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the
doctrine of separation of powers and would, therefore, be valid in law. The
Supreme Court further observed that being the protector of civil liberties of the
citizens, the High Court would not only have power and jurisdiction but also an
obligation to protect fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III, in general, and
under Article 21 of the Constitution, in particular, zealously and vigilantly.
In Rubabbudalin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat and others
[(2010) 2 SCC 200], the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the
involvement of State police personnel in the crime was clearly made out.
Therefore, the Supreme Court observed that directing the State police authorities
to continue with the investigation would not yield any result and directed that CBI
should be asked to take up the investigation. A similar direction was issued again
in Narmada Bai Vs. State of Gujarat and others [(2011) 5 SCC 79].
W.P. (C) No. 496 of 2019 Page 7
In Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association and
another vs. Union of India and others [(2017) 8 SCC 417], the Supreme
Court was dealing with 'encounter deaths' in the State of Manipur and opined that
it would be inappropriate to depend upon the Manipur police to carry out an
impartial investigation when some of its own personnel were involved. The
Supreme Court accordingly directed the CBI to look into the fake encounters/use
of excessive or retaliatory force and complete the investigation.
More recently, in Rhea Chakraborty Vs. State of Bihar and others
[(2020) 20 SCC 184], the Supreme Court noted that legitimacy of the
investigation in that case had come under a cloud owing to the acrimonious
allegations of political interference made by both States against each other.
Opining that a fair, competent and impartial investigation was the need of the
hour, the Supreme Court directed the CBI to undertake the investigation.
Closer home, in Ch. Taratombi Devi Vs. The State of Manipur and
others [PIL No. 1 of 2010 decided on 23.12.2009], a Division Bench of the
Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court was dealing with an alleged fake
encounter involving personnel of the Manipur Police Commandos. The Division
Bench was of the opinion that if credibility of the investigation was at the risk of
doubt, it would be contrary to public interest as well as the interest of justice and
directed the CBI to undertake and complete the investigation.
In Arti Gujjar Vs. State of U.P. and another [Misc. Bench No.
22997 of 2016 decided on 23.05.2018], a Division Bench of the Allahabad
High Court was dealing with refusal by the CBI to undertake investigation on the
ground that the case was a 'chance killing' and did not have any interstate or
W.P. (C) No. 496 of 2019 Page 8
international ramifications. The Division Bench opined that possibility of the death
being premeditated could not be ruled out. As to the case not having any
interstate or international ramifications, the Bench observed that it would depend
on the attending facts and circumstances and to eliminate the element of bias or
influence and, therefore, such investigation can be undertaken by the CBI even if
a case did not have interstate or international ramifications.
Earlier, in Ningthoujam Tomchou Vs. Union of India and
others [Crl. Petn. No. 51 of 2019 decided on 06.11.2019], this Court
directed a CBI investigation, observing that, in order to do justice to the victim's
family and instill confidence in the public mind, it was necessary to entrust the
investigation of the case to the CBI. A similar order was passed by a Division
Bench of the Kolkata High Court in Shaista Afreen and others vs. State of
West Bengal and others [WPA (P) 157 of 2022 decided on 12.04.2022].
[12] In the light of this settled legal position, it is indeed
incomprehensible as to why the CBI, despite a specific request from the State to
undertake investigation in the case on hand, declined to do so on extraneous
grounds. Had it undertaken the investigation at that time, the case would have
probably reached its logical conclusion by now. It is a matter of public knowledge
that the CBI takes up investigation in cases which have no interstate or
international ramifications, be it upon the direction of Courts or at the behest of
the State Governments, usually without protest. But, unfortunately, in the case on
hand, despite a notification being issued in the name of the Governor of Manipur
as long back as on 18.03.2004, just after the incident, requesting the CBI to
undertake the investigation, in its wisdom, the CBI chose to say no.
W.P. (C) No. 496 of 2019 Page 9
[13] The pleadings on record have brought it to the fore that the armed
forces of the Central Government are not co-operating with the State police in the
investigation of the subject FIR. Despite a requisition being put in by the State
police on 19.05.2021, it appears that there was not even a reply thereto.
Therefore, the State police are clearly not in a position to ascertain the
whereabouts of Major AK Singh of 19th Rajput Rifles, who is stated to have led
the operation on the fateful day resulting in the killing of the petitioner's son, or
the other personnel involved. It seems to be a classic case of the armed forces
taking care of their own.
[14] Given the irrefutable fact that the Central Government has mutely
accepted the findings of this Court with regard to the petitioner's son being done
to death wrongfully by its armed forces and having already paid the
compensation therefor, as directed by this Court, it is too late in the day for the
Central Government or its armed forces to attempt a denial or seek to protect
those who are guilty of this barbaric offence.
[15] In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, there can be
nothing more despicable than 'uniformed armed personnel' resorting to brutal
extra-judicial killings to assert their might and power. In most such cases, the
wrongdoers go scot-free, be it for one reason or the other. However, in the case
on hand, acceptance by the Central Government of the findings rendered by this
Court, holding that the petitioner's son was killed in a fake encounter by the
personnel of 19th Rajput Rifles, mandates that the wrongdoers, four of whom are
already known, be brought to book by proper investigation into their criminal
acts.
W.P. (C) No. 496 of 2019 Page 10
[16] As noted hereinabove, the refusal by the CBI at the relevant point
of time has led to an unnecessary delay of 18 long years since that ill-fated young
man of just 20 years was done to death brutally. As the CBI has none to blame
but itself for this delay, it is incumbent upon it to use all the resources available
to it and undertake investigation forthwith by ascertaining the whereabouts of all
the personnel of 19th Rajput Rifles, who were involved in the incident, and take
appropriate action against them in accordance with law. The State police are
directed to hand over all the records to the CBI.
[17] The CBI shall commence investigation upon receipt of the records
pertaining to FIR No. 9(3)2004 Patsoi Police Station, from the State police and
complete the investigation within six months from the date of receipt of such
records. All measures shall be taken by the CBI to ascertain the whereabouts of
the persons concerned and the Union of India, though not a party, is directed to
extend full cooperation to the CBI in this regard.
The writ petition is allowed with the above directions.
Though highly deserving, we do not mulct the CBI with costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sandeep
W.P. (C) No. 496 of 2019 Page 11
