NINGTHEMCHA ONGBI SHAKHENBI DEVI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Supreme Court and the High Courtts being the protectors of the civil libertl' s of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also obligation to grad relief in exercise of their jurisdictions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India to the victims or heirs of the victims whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the state to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizens, notwithstanding the right of the citizens to the remedy by way of civil suit or criminal proceedings. Basing on these principles of law, petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for monetary compensation for unjustified killing of her son, late R.K.Laksana @ Vito Singh by the personnel of the Manipur Police Commando Unit under the private respondent No. 6 (i.e. Shri Pebam John Singh, S. I.) while he (R.K.Laksana @ Vito Singh) was in their custody. In the present writ petition, over and above the relief for monetary compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-, the petitioner prays for :

(2.) The Apex Court in Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 571 : (1984 Cri LJ 289) discussed about the nature of consideration of facts in a writ proceeding and held that "In a writ petition under Article 32 rarely, If ever, pleadings are meticulously extracted and reproduced in the Judgment. It however became a compelling necessity in this case for the obvious reason that certain inferences were drawn and submitted for the consideration of this Court by both sides after referring to facts admitted and/or not controverted. We would, therefore be justified in deducing the indisputable fact situation that emerges from the rival affidavits and then proceed to draw necessary permissible inferences that flow from them". Even in the writ proceeding, it has been held that it would be justified in deducing the indisputable (act situation that emerges from the rival affidavits and then proceed to draw necessary permissible inferences that flow from them. Keeping in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union oflndia (supra), this Court is meticulously examining the facts admitted and/or not controverted by the parties vis-a-vis in the present case for drawing necessary permissible inferences that flow from them. Justice KrishnanIyer (As he was then) was made an observation in Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, AIR 1980 SC 785 : 1980 Cri LJ 426. "An encounter ensued, both sides sustained injuries and the deceased succumbed to a flrearnl shot even as some of the police party sustained revolver wounds but survived, May be, the defence case, if reasonably true, may absolve them of the crime, although the story of encounters during arrest and unwitting injuries resulting in casualties, sometimes become a mask to hide easy liquidation of human life by heartless policemen when some one allergic to authority resists their vices. The police have the advantage that they prepare the preliminary record which may 'kill' the case against them. This disquieting syndrome of policemen committing crimes of killing and making up perfect paperwork cases of innocent discharge of duty should not be ruled out when Courts examine rival versions." The petitioner Is the mother of late; R.K. Laksana @ Vito Singh, Late R.K.Laksana Vito Singh), it is said, after passing HSLC Examination stopped his study and started supporting his father in maintaining the family maintenance by doing small time business. In the course of his business,, it is said that late R. K. Laksana @ Vito Singh used to visit the State of Tripura, other places like Guwahati and Moreh and his business was supplying of porks to the pork vendors of Imphal City specially in Kakhulong and Majorkhul after collecting pigs from different parts of Manipur, and in the course of his business he got about Rs'. 5000-6000/- per month. His income, it Is said, was utilized for the maintenance of the family and also in incurring expenditure in the educational fees for his younger brothers and sisters.

(3.) On 15-2-1999 about 7 A. M. when late R.K.Laksana Singh returned to his house after supplying porks to different pork vendors of Imphal City, present petitioner asked him (late R.K.Laksana) to go to the house of one Shri Sukham Yaima Singh of Chigamakha Oinam Leirak, Imphal who is said to be a close friend of her family to enquire about his illess. As Instructed by his mother (Present petitioner), late R. K. Laksana @ Vito Singh went to the house of Shri Sukham Yaima Singh of Chingamakha Oinam Leiram, Imphal. After reaching the house of Shri Sukham Yaima Singh, late R.K.Laksana Singh was requested by the family members of Sukham Yaima Singh to purchase some medicines from the nearby medico shops and accordingly he (late R. K. Laksana) went and purchased some medicines. It is said that when late R.K.Laksana came back to the house of Shri Sukham Yaima Singh after purchasing the medicines, present petitioner was also present at the house of Shri Sukham Yaima Singh. After giving the said medicines to Shri Sukham Yaima Singh, late R.K.Laksana Singh entered into the drawing room of Sukham Yaima Singh for watching a Manipuri Film "Merathagi Sanarei". It is said that after some time, a neighbour of Shri Sukham Yaima Singh namely, Shri Sukham Indrakumar Singh came and Joined in watching the said Manlpuri Film. At about 9.30 A.M. of the same day. i.e. 15-2-1999, some police personnel of Manipur Police, it is said, were chasing some Insurgents who were rushing inside the court-yard and dwelling house of Shri Sukham Yaima Singh by shouting to stop them. The police personnel, it is said, had arrested 2/3 youths from the house of Shri Sukham Yaima Singh and tortured them before putting them to their police vehicles.