LUITHUKIA Vs. RISHANG KEISHING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is yet another case of counterfeit release. The first case of this nature dealt with by this Court was of Chaoba Singh which was the subject matter of Nungshitombi Devi v. Rishang Keishing1, judgment in which had caused a flutter and which still holds good as Special Leave Petition against the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29.4.83 in SLP No. 3257/83. Next such case was dealt with directly by the Apex Court in Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, in which ultimately exemplary cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded to each of the two concerned women, vide Sabastian M. Hongray3.

(2.) In the present case the petitioner is the wife of one Kh. Budha Singh. Her case is that on 4.11.83 Budha Singh had left Champhung village for his native village Pungdongbam to attend a function there. At the midnight of 6.11.83 army personnel took Budha Singh away. On 7.11.83 Pishak Singh, brother of Budha Singh, visited the army camp at Nongdam village and enquired about the whereabouts of Budha Singh but no information was divulged to him. Pishak Singh informed the petitioner about this and lodged an ejahar with the 0/C, Lamlai P. 5. He also contacted the President of the Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organisation (CLAHRO), Impbal. The President wrote a D.0. letter to Major S. C. Anand of 61 Infantry Brigade. He also met the Brigadier on 10.11.83 who informed him that Budha Singh was involved in anti-national activities and after collection of some information from him he would be handed over to the police personnel as soon as possible. As by 28th November, the where about of Bhudha Singh could not be known, the President of the CLAHRO wrote another letter to Major Anand. In the meantime Major Anand wrote to the President of CLAHRO stating that Budha Singh had been called for questioning by the army on 6th and 7th November in connection with the report about his anti national activities. On both the days he was asked to report the next day to clarify the doubts but he neither returned nor reported to the army since 8th November, 1. 1982(1) GLR 756. 2. AIR 1984 SC 57.

(3.) AIR. 1984 SC 1026. Major Anand reiterated that Budha Singh had not been arrested by the army at any stage. As whereabouts of Budha Singh could not be known and nothing was heard about him by his family members the present application was filed in December 1983. It is pity that this petition is being disposed of today after about 5 years. Though long 5 years have passed nothing has been heard about Budha Singh. 2A. The case of the Army as transpires from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by Major Karamjit Singh is that Bhudha Singh was contacted at 2100 hrs f 6th November and he voluntarily accompanied the security forces. Again on 7th November Budha Singh voluntarily came and extended cooperation to lead a column of security forces which had started in the evening of 7th November. By the early hours of 8th November Budha Singh led the column to an abandoned hut which was allegedly a meeting place of the extremists near Champhong village. When no extremist was found in the hut, Budha Singh requested that he be allowed to contact the local Gaonburah, who, according to Budha Singh, knew about the exact location of the hideouts of the extremists. He also assured that he would return at 1200 hrs He requested that no security force personnel should accompany him lost he might be identified as supporter/informer of the security forces. The further case of the respondents 2 and 3 is that Budha Singh, after having left the column as aforesaid did not return and since then Budha Singh neither contacted the security forces nor has any of their troops seen him. 3. Shri Nilamani Singh first submits that version of arrest etc. given by Pishak Singh should be accepted by us as it finds support from the FIR, lodging of which has been accepted by the State. We find force in this submission as Pishak Singh, a poor unsophisticated villager from a hill area, would not have got in touch with police as early as 8.11.83 seeking help to find out his brother if Budha Singh would have voluntarily left the house on the night of 6th as is the case of the army. The learned counsel then contends that the army has given two versions relating to Budha Singh. Learned counsel draws our attention to the statements made by Major Anand in his letter to the President of CLAHRO wherein nothing has been stated about any action of Bud ha Singh relating to his leading a army column to Champhong village. As the aforesaid letter was written after the matter was investigated in detail, as stated in the letter it is urged by the learned counsel that if Budha Singh would have led any column to Champhong village and would have left the column allegedly to contact the village Gaonburah, these facts would have definitely found place in the letter of Major Anand which however is absolutely silent about this aspect of the case of the army. Learned counsel finally contends that the story of Budha Singh leading any column to Champhong village and his leaving the column allegedly to contact the village Gaonburah are all matters of afterthought and no reliance should be placed on this case of the army. We are inclined to accept this submission of Shri Nilamani Singh. In the first version of the case given out by Major Anand nothing has been stated about this apart of the case of the army. As Major Anand had written the letter after investigating the matter in detail, this part of the case of the army would not have missed Major Anand. We would, therefore, hold that the story of Budha Singh leading the army column on 8th November to Chembhong village is not believable. We also do not believe that Budha Singh had allegedly left the army column on 8th November to meet the village Gaonburah. If he would have done so it would not have been difficult on the part of the army to file any affidavit of the village Gaonburah which has not been done.