STATE Vs. NONGMAITHEM TOMCHOU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the Government of Manipur under Section 489, Cr.P.C. to revise the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur, in Original Revision Case No. 50/64/35/65 dated 16.2.1966, refusing to set aside the order of discharge of the respondents passed by the S.D.O., Thoubal under Section 207A (b), Cr.P.C. in C.R. Case No. 159 of 196D dated 20.7.1964.

(2.) THE ease of the prosecution is that on 5 -11.1968 at about 4 -00 p.m. one Kumari Nongmaithem Manisang Devi was returning home with her girl friends, namely, N. Sorojini Devi, N. Mani Devi, Y. Sanabanbi Devi, M. Purnima Devi and Kh. Thambalyaima Devi from Kakching Girls' High School, that when they reached the gate of one Naorm Kanhai Singh of Kakching Chuthek Hingthou, the respondents suddenly emerged from a truck No. MNS 5l02 which was parked there and they forcibly lifted Manisang Devi into the truck to compel her to marry the first respondent N. Tomchou Singh against her will. Though, she raised alarm for rescue, the truck was driven towards Pallal side. The companions of Mahisang Devi reported the occurrence to the family of the girl. Immediately thereupon. Nongmaithem Iboyaima Singh, elder brother of the girl, made a vigorous search along with others for her till about 11.00 a.m. of 6.11.63 They found the truck and its driver, namely, the second respondent, Naorem Shamu Singh behind Pallal village. He made an extra, judicial confession before the search party. The search party brought him with the truck and handed him with the truck to the Pallal Outpost at about 5.50 p.m. on 6.11.65. A written complaint was given by the girl's brother Nongmaithem Iboyaima Singh. The Outpost Police Station forwarded the arrested accused to the Thoubal Police Station, as it had no jurisdiction to register the case. The Officer -in -charge of Thoubal Police Station registered a case under Section 366, I.P.C. and sent F.I.R. to the Officer -in -charge, Pallal Outpost for investigation. The latter recovered the girl and examined the 6 eye -witnesses to the actual occurrence. He also examined one inhabitant near the place of occurrence and 3 witnesses including the complainant before whom extra, judicial confession was made by the second respondent. After completing the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the respondents under Section 366, I.P.C.

(3.) THE petitioner herein filed Criminal Revision Case No. 50/64/35/65 on the file of Sessions Court, Manipur, to revise the order of discharge. The revision petition was disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur. He held that the petitioner should have moved the S.D.M. to examine the other eye -witnesses and that though it was a proper case for the Sessions Judge to set aside the order of discharge and to direct the S.D.M. to make fu ether enquiry by examining the other eye -witnesses, the Additional Sessions Judge thought that his hands were tied as the revision petition was filed under Section 437, Cr.P.C., and not under Section 486, Cr.P.C., under the proviso of which the Court could, make the direction after giving an opportunity to the discharged person to show cause why a direction for further enquiry should not be made.