People's
Union for Civil Liberties (Pucl) Vs. Union of India & Anr [1995] INSC 206 (30 March 1995)
Jeevan
Reddy, B.P. (J) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) Sen, S.C. (J) B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.:
CITATION:
1995 SCC Supl. (2) 572 JT 1995 (3) 365 1995 SCALE (2)542
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
1.
This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is filed by the
People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) for the issuance of an appropriate
direction instituting a judicial enquiry to enquire into the incidents
mentioned in the writ petition and to further direct the respondents (Union of
India and State of Manipur) to take action against the erring police officers.
A direction for awarding compensation to the members of the family of the
deceased is also prayed for.
2. The
petitioner says that on 3rd
April, 1991 a fake
encounter was staged by the Imphal District Police in Lunthilian village in Churachandpur
District wherein two persons viz., Lalbeiklien s/o Thatngur of Lunthilian
village and Saikaplien, s/o Tenga of Tingbum village of Mizoram were killed. It is alleged that a
false FIR was lodged by the District Police at Imphal Police Station at 4.30
p.m. on 4.4.1991 wherein it was alleged that on receipt of reliable information
to the effect that some hardcore leaders of the Hamar People's Convention (HPC)
were camping at Lunthilian village, they rushed to the village on 3.4.91 and
that when they reached the village at about 11.00 p.m. on that day, they were
fired upon by the members of the HPC. It was alleged that in the exchange of
fire, the two aforesaid persons died made three others were apprehended. It was
also stated that the police recovered a.22 country revolver with seven rounds
of ammunition, a cash amount of Rs. 1,213/ - and a large number of
incriminating document-,. It is stated by the petitioner in the writ petition
that the above version of the police is strongly denied by the relatives of the
said deceased persons. According to them, no encounter as such took place in
the village and not a single shot was fired. According to them, the said two
deceased persons were taken away by the police and killed in a cold-blooded
manner and that this version is corroborated by villagers who were present when
be said persons were taken away and also from the various reports appearing in
the local and national media. According to the petitioner further the true case
is that the Police came to the village at about 9.30 p.m. on that day and took away five persons including the two
deceased. They took away the Chairman of the Village also with them, but he was
let-off on the out- 366 skirts of the village. Remaining five persons were
taken away in a truck after blindfolding them. At about 2.00 p.m.
on
4.4.91, i.e., after travelling for about 16 hours and after crossing the Lanva Bridge which is about 5 km. from Churachandpur, the two deceased
were called by the police and taken away from the back They, were taken to some
distance and shot there. The remaining three persons in the truck heard the
gunshots. Subsequently, the dead bodies were dumped in the truck and taken to Imphal
where the other three persons were kept in the Imphal Police Station for four
days. Then they were taken to Churachandpur Police Station and were kept there
for about 9 days. They were then brought back to Imphal Police Station and
lodged in the Imphal Central Jail. Ten days later they were taken to Mizoram
where they were released on bail on 22.7.1991. The affidavits of two of the
said three persons, viz., Remthang and Lalsansuot, sworn before the Judicial
Magistrate, 1 Class on 20th
August, 1991, are
filed alongwith the writ petition. Affidavits of villagers and wives of the
deceased are also filed in support of the above version. The writ petition then
sets out, what it calls, the serious lacunae, irregularities and
inconsistencies in the version put forward by the police, vide para 7 of the
writ petition.
3. On 13th November, 1992 this Court issued notice to the
respondents in this writ petition returnable within six weeks. A
counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent (State of Manipur) sworn to by Shri Kh. Mohendro
Singh, Joint Secretary (Home) Government of Manipur. He has denied the several
averments in the writ petition and has affirmed the version put forward in the
FIR as the true one. Alongwith the counter-affidavit, copies of postmortem
reports relating to the said two deceased persons are filed.
4. A
rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioner denying the averments in
the counter affidavit and reiterating the statements made in the writ petition.
Alongwith
the rejoinder some more affidavits have been filed.
5. It
would be evident from a perusal of the pleadings that there is a serious
dispute as to relevant facts. One of the aspects stressed by Shri Rajender Sachar,
learned senior advocate for the petitioner is that according to the postmortem
report filed by the respondents, not only the entry point of all the bullets is
in the back of the deceased, there is blackening, tattooing and scrooting in
respect of one of the bullet entry points pertaining to Beiklin. The learned
counsel submits that the said circumstance supports the petitioner's case that
the said deceased were shot from behind and at a close range.
6. The
learned counsel for the respondent, however, disputes the correctness of the
said submission.
7. In
view of the aforesaid two contradictory versions, we think it appropriate in
the facts and circumstances of the case that an enquiry is made by the learned
District and Sessions Judge, Churachandpur, State of Manipur into the said
incident. The learned District Judge shall record the evidence of the relevant
witnesses and submit a report to this Court within six months. To enable the
teamed District Judge to appreciate the facts of the case and also to enable
him to identify the witnesses to be 367 summoned, copies of writ petition,
counter and rejoinder alongwith the enclosed documents and affidavits shall be
forwarded to him. The learned District Judge shall examine the deponents of the
said affidavits, if they are available and willing to come forward to give
evidence, And all such persons as he thinks appropriate in the circumstances
and make his report.
8. It
is obvious that before commencing the enquiry, die learned District Judge shall
send notices to the petitioners as well as the respondents.
9.
List after the receipt of the report from the learned District Judge, Churachandpur,
Manipur.
Back