Attempted Murder Case 2012: Court remands three accused to judicial custody
Prosecution names Thounaojam Brinda as main accused in the case
The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Imphal West, Y Somorjit Singh on Saturday remanded three accused of the 2012 attempted murder case to 15-day judicial custody through video conferencing. The case of a murder attempt against a woman in Thangmeiband for which, the final report was submitted and closed on 2013 by the police, was revived by the CJM recently. The three accused have been identified as Arambam Manju, Laitonjam Gopal and MD Imran Hussain alias Boi.
The CJM revived the case on the ground that there was a new light which could lead to the identification and arrest of the unknown culprits of the case.
An order of the court stated that the application was filed by Investigation Unit for Crime against Women (IUCAW) Imphal West additional SP, MPS Ratna Ngasepam, through the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), praying for 15 days judicial remands of the three accused for smooth investigation of the case. However, the counsels of the accused persons objected the remand and sought bail.
As such, the APP submitted that the accused persons are directly connected with the commission of the offences in the case.
The APP countering the bail objection informed the court that Arambam Manju was working as a driver of one Thounaojam Brinda, wife of RK Chinglensana from Yaishkul Janmasthan from the year 2005-2006 till May 2012.
It is also submitted that Manju along with other two co-accused persons and one Abdul Tarique (now expired) had conspired and given effect to the commission of the alleged offences on the instruction of Thounaojam Brinda, the main accused of the present case whose name is yet to be impleaded.
The APP further informed the court that Th Brinda was in a relationship with the complainant namely, Mayanglambam Khelendro Singh of Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai. On many occasions, the accused person Manju had witnessed Khelendro spending time together with Brinda, APP added.
The APP alleged that Thounaojam Brinda wanted to get rid of Geetabala, wife of Khelendro as Geetabala became a hurdle/obstruction to the love relationship between Khelendro and Thounaojam Brinda (who is going to be the main accused in the present case).
As per the order, the prosecution highlighted the series of events and facts starting from how Arambam Manju met Mayanglambam Khelendro through Thounaojam Brinda at Sekmai and how she (Thounaojam Brinda) planned and instructed the accused (Manju) to commit the offence of threatening the wife of Khelendro. Khelendro is the husband of the victim Geetabala Devi of Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai.
Mayanglambam Khelendro reportedly filed a complaint that on May 29, 2012 around 5:30 pm, his wife Mayanglambam (o) Geetabala Devi of Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai was all alone with his baby daughter at home when three unknown persons came in one red Honda Activa and attempted to forcefully give an injection by tying both her hand and mouth by a thick cello tape.
The APP further submitted that the accused person Manju along with his cousin namely, Arambam Kishan alias Boboy went to Sikkim in March 2012 to bring back Khelendro as per the instruction of Thounaojam Brinda and for this, Thounaojam Brinda managed the expenses, including flight tickets.
The APP further narrated how the accused Manju was introduced to the other accused persons namely Gopal Singh and one Abdul Tarique from Porompat Pangal Leirak and how Thounaojam Brinda masterminded for executing the commission of the offence.
The APP further stated that it was through Abdul Tarique, the HIV-infected blood was procured and the same was to be injected on Khelendro’s wife on the fateful day the offence was committed.
The APP further submitted that Gopal is a good friend of Manju and he acted as a driver of Thounaojam Brinda as and when the accused Manju was outside the state. It is also submitted that both the accused Manju and Gopal were using SP Tablets during the year 2011-2012 and Abdul Tarique used to sell SP tablets to them.
The APP submitted that the main accused Thounaojam Brinda cannot be arrested as of now as she has already taken anticipatory bail vide an order of the Sessions Judge, Imphal West. It is further submitted that the present accused persons used a small gun/ pistol of RK Chinglen, who is the husband of Thounaojam Brinda, at the time of threatening the wife of M Khelendro.
In this regard, a summoned letter has been served to Rajkumar Chinglen, son of RK Sanayaima to examine him in connection with the case. However, the summons letter was not accepted by Thounaojam Brinda and RK Chinglen, saying that they would not accept any paper from the police, the prosecution alleged.
The APP stated that there is a strong prima facie case that the arrested persons are involved in the case and their presence within the judicial custody is highly required as more important facts and evidence are likely to be revealed during the course of investigation.
The prosecution office asserted that if the accused persons are released on bail at this stage of investigation, there is high possibility that many important witnesses and evidences, including circumstantial evidences, are likely to be tampered with by the main accused, Th Brinda and the witnesses are also likely to be influenced by the main accused.
However, Arambam Manju’s counsel strongly objected to the prayer of the APP stating that there is no basis for further remanding the accused person into judicial custody as the investigation process is almost completed.
The counsel argued that the prosecution side has not seized any plausible/ reliable evidence and material substance thereby directly supporting the prosecution case.
No guns/ pistol, cello-tape, ropes, syringes, etc. which the prosecution side alleged to have been involved in the present case are seized by the investigating agency so far and the case is nothing but only to harass the accused person with a hidden agenda against Thounaojam Brinda by some persons of vested interests, said the accused counsel.
The revival of the case, which was already closed in the year 2013, speaks of itself that there is a hidden agenda in arresting/ implicating the present accused for the alleged offence which has nothing to do with the present accused Manju, the counsel added.
Counsels for accused Gopal and Hussain respectively also strongly objected to the judicial remand prayer proposed by the prosecution side in the similar line of submission as made by the Counsel for accused Manju. It is submitted that the case was already closed in the year 2013 after proper hearing of the complainant/ informant and APP for the state.
It is of no point that the case is revived after a lapse of seven years and more. It was submitted that the act of the prosecution side is vindictive and mala fide in intention. Moreover, the case is without a material basis and that no substantial evidence is procured at hand by the prosecution side/ investigating agency during the course of investigation except presenting a concocted story about the involvement of one Thounaojam Brinda in the present case.
Supporting the submission of Counsel for other two accused, it was submitted that if there is material substance revealed against the main accused, Thounaojam Brinda during the course of investigation and she and her husband are not cooperating with the police in the process of investigation, they can be arrested at any point of time by invoking relevant provision of law.
However, the same was not done by the investigating agency and the accused persons are subjected to harassment on account of the hidden agenda of some interested persons, it was submitted.
The court, however, opined that the prosecution side/ investigating agency have come to new and sensitive facts in the present FIR case.
The new facts that have been brought to the notice of the Court in today's judicial remand prayer are quite interesting and intriguing. The Court in order to satisfy the basic ingredients of having a prima facie case as to the involvement of the accused person in the present case and the chain of events as highlighted in the present judicial remand application, made a preliminary enquiry to the accused persons and enquired about the health conditions and possible negative acts done in the police custody.
On examination of facts and preliminary examination of the accused persons, it seems there is a prima facie case that the accused persons are directly involved in the commission of the offences in the present FIR case, said the court. It is also prima facie seen that the accused committed the offences on the instruction of Thounaojam Brinda whose name is yet to be impleaded as an accused in the present case.
As submitted by the IO of the case, Thounaojam Brinda has been released on anticipatory bail vide an Order passed by the Sessions Judge, Imphal West. The I.O of the case also prayed before the Court for allowing to submit the said anticipatory bail order along with the application filed by Thounaojam Brinda and the CD in hard copy to which this court allowed.
The IO of the case is also directed to submit the aforesaid documents in hard copy to the court within three days from today.
The court pointed out that the main accused of the case is yet to be impleaded and for this, more investigation is required on the part of the investigating agency. And one co-accused Arambam Kishan alias Boboi is yet to be arrested and for this the physical presence of the accused persons is necessary as the accused persons probably have full knowledge about the whereabouts of the accused.
As the present case is established on the basis of circumstantial evidence as of now, there is a possibility that the alleged main accused Thounaojam Brinda may likely use her position in order to influence the witnesses and for destroying the possible circumstantial evidences, it was observed.
And the severity of the crime alleged to have been committed is quite serious in nature that it involves an attempt to inject HIV infected blood to the victim/ complainant's wife allegedly on the instruction of Thounaojam Brinda and as such releasing the accused persons at the present stage may not be in the interest of justice, said the court.