The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West on Monday rejected the final report submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the death of Wahengbam Jayenta, who was allegedly shot by police commandos and AR troops on February 6, 2012 near Don Bosco Phayeng.
The CBI submitted the final report to the court with a prayer for closing the case for want of evidence on the ground that no material substance for conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt was found against the security personnel. The victim's family had alleged the security personnel of committing extra-judicial killing of Jayenta.
In response to the closure report submitted by the CBI, the victim's family and EEVFAM as petitioners filed the protest petition with a prayer for rejecting the closure report submitted by the CBI.
The petitioners prayed for further investigation by rejecting the closure report submitted by the investigating officer of the case and for taking cognisance of the offence levelled against the accused persons.
It may be mentioned that on 2012 the Extrajudicial Execution Victims’ Families Association, Manipur (EEVFAM) and Human Rights Alert (HRA) approached the Supreme Court of India for issuing appropriate orders of setting up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of police officers from outside Manipur to investigate instances of alleged extra-judicial executions and thereafter prosecute the offenders in accordance with law.
The SC had directed the CBl director to nominate a group of five officers to go through the records of the cases and lodge necessary FIRs and to complete the investigations. Accordingly, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted by the CB1 of the Administrative Division of DSPE, CBI, New Delhi.
Wahengbam Ongbi Inakhumbi Devi, who is the wife of late W Jayenta Singh, as a petitioner among the petitioners rejecting the final report had the doubt that the encounter team deliberately killed her husband.
Observing the closure report submitted by the CBI, the court observed that mere excuse that the gold ring worn by the deceased was misplaced in the process of shifting the Police Station is not good enough.
Concerning the bullet jackets, the court stated that the possibility of manipulation of material evidence cannot be ruled out as the present case had been a very sensitive case right from the beginning. Accordingly, it was observed that the responsible person/officer should be made accountable and liability be fixed for destruction of important evidence.
“It seems that there was no exchange of fire from both sides; rather, as facts indicate, there was one-sided action from the side of security personnel,” the court stated, concerning the claim made by security personnel.
Inakhunbi Devi claimed that her husband's call was going till February 6, 2012 evening 4pm. Her husband was shot by the combined team of Manipur Police Commandos and AR personnel allegedly in an encounter on the very evening of February 6.
The court opined that even if the petitioner could not remember her/her husband's mobile number, it would not have been a difficult task on the part of CBI to find out the mobile numbers through their relatives or friends. It seems that CBI never attempted to find out the mobile numbers and reliable CDRs of the mobile numbers used by the petitioner and her husband on the fateful day, the court stated.
The call log report from the seized mobile handset is not helpful for the purpose of corroborating the claim of the petitioner of having been called several times to her husband/deceased after being informed of his arrest at or around 9.00 am of February 6, 2012, the court stated. “Attempts should have been made by the CBI to procure the CDR of the relevant timing as claimed by the petitioner. However, it seems it was not done so,” it added.
The court observed that the investigation of the case appears to be incomplete though there are primaries of committing fake encounters by the combined team of CDO Imphal West, a column of 10 Assam Rifles and a team of HQ 9- Sector.
Therefore, the court rejected the final report and took up cognisance for commission of offences U/S 302/34 IPC.
The CBI has been directed by the court to initiate proceedings for taking Prosecution Sanction as per law from the authorities concerned under whom the accused persons namely, inspector (then) P Sanjoy Singh; G Khamzamung; M Khaibiaklun; Ch Dipak Singh; K Brojen Singh; Ksh Sunder Singh; SI (then), Potsangbam Tarunkumar Singh; Chabungbam Sanachaoba Victor; Elangbam Abung Singh; Yenkhom Keshorjit Singh; major Vijay Singh Dhanak; havildar L Kamini Singh; riflemen A Bimal Singh; riflemen GD Sagar Rutkute; riflemen GD Kedokho Yoshu; major (then) N Ranjan Singh are employed/worked/ working.
CBI has been also directed for further investigation in respect with missing links/ points highlighted by the court and gives liberty to the investigation agency/ CBI to explore all possibilities for finding the truth of the present case and submit a subsequent report before the filing of final charge sheet or before committal of the present case to the higher Court, as the case may be.
