PETITIONER: PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES (PUCL) Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT30/03/1995 BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) SEN, S.C. (J) CITATION: 1995 SCC Supl. (2) 572 JT 1995 (3) 365 1995 SCALE (2)542 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.:
1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
is filed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)
for the issuance of an appropriate direction instituting a
judicial enquiry to enquire into the incidents mentioned in
the writ petition and to further direct the respondents
(Union of India and State of Manipur) to take action against
the erring police officers. A direction for awarding
compensation to the members of the family of the deceased is
also prayed for.
2. The petitioner says that on 3rd April, 1991 a fake
encounter was staged by the Imphal District Police in
Lunthilian village in Churachandpur District wherein two
persons viz., Lalbeiklien s/o Thatngur of Lunthilian village
and Saikaplien, s/o Tenga of Tingbum village of Mizoram were
killed. It is alleged that a false FIR was lodged by the
District Police at Imphal Police Station at 4.30 p.m. on
4.4.1991 wherein it was alleged that on receipt of reliable
information to the effect that some hardcore leaders of the
Hamar People’s Convention (HPC) were camping at Lunthilian
village, they rushed to the village on 3.4.91 and that when
they reached the village at about 11.00 p.m. on that day,
they were fired upon by the members of the HPC. It was
alleged that in the exchange of fire, the two aforesaid
persons died made three others were apprehended. It was
also stated that the police recovered a.22 country revolver
with seven rounds of ammunition, a cash amount of Rs. 1,213/
– and a large number of incriminating document-,. It is
stated by the petitioner in the writ petition that the above
version of the police is strongly denied by the relatives of
the said deceased persons. According to them, no encounter
as such took place in the village and not a single shot was
fired. According to them, the said two deceased persons
were taken away by the police and killed in a cold-blooded
manner and that this version is corroborated by villagers
who were present when be said persons were taken away and
also from the various reports appearing in the local and
national media. According to the petitioner further the
true case is that the Police came to the village at about
9.30 p.m. on that day and took away five persons including
the two deceased. They took away the Chairman of the
Village also with them, but he was let-off on the out-
366
skirts of the village. Remaining five persons were taken
away in a truck after blindfolding them. At about 2.00 p.m.
on 4.4.91, i.e., after travelling for about 16 hours and
after crossing the Lanva Bridge which is about 5 km. from
Churachandpur, the two deceased were called by the police
and taken away from the back They, were taken to some
distance and shot there. The remaining three persons in the
truck heard the gunshots. Subsequently, the dead bodies
were dumped in the truck and taken to Imphal where the other
three persons were kept in the Imphal Police Station for
four days. Then they were taken to Churachandpur Police
Station and were kept there for about 9 days. They were
then brought back to Imphal Police Station and lodged in the
Imphal Central Jail. Ten days later they were taken to
Mizoram where they were released on bail on 22.7.1991. The
affidavits of two of the said three persons, viz.,
Remthang and Lalsansuot, sworn before the Judicial
Magistrate, 1 Class on 20th August, 1991, are filed
alongwith the writ petition. Affidavits of villagers and
wives of the deceased are also filed in support of the above
version. The writ petition then sets out, what it calls,
the serious lacunae, irregularities and inconsistencies in
the version put forward by the police, vide para 7 of the
writ petition.
3. On 13th November, 1992 this Court issued notice to the
respondents in this writ petition returnable within six
weeks. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
second respondent (State of Manipur) sworn to by Shri Kh.
Mohendro Singh, Joint Secretary (Home) Government of
Manipur. He has denied the several averments in the writ
petition and has affirmed the version put forward in the FIR
as the true one. Alongwith the counter-affidavit, copies of
postmortem reports relating to the said two deceased persons
are filed.
4. A rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioner
denying the averments in the counter affidavit and
reiterating the statements made in the writ petition.
Alongwith the rejoinder some more affidavits have been
filed.
5. It would be evident from a perusal of the pleadings
that there is a serious dispute as to relevant facts. One
of the aspects stressed by Shri Rajender Sachar, learned
senior advocate for the petitioner is that according to the
postmortem report filed by the respondents, not only the
entry point of all the bullets is in the back of the
deceased, there is blackening, tattooing and scrooting in
respect of one of the bullet entry points pertaining to
Beiklin. The learned counsel submits that the said
circumstance supports the petitioner’s case that the said
deceased were shot from behind and at a close range.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent, however,
disputes the correctness of the said submission.
7. In view of the aforesaid two contradictory versions, we
think it appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the
case that an enquiry is made by the learned District and
Sessions Judge, Churachandpur, State of Manipur into the
said incident. The learned District Judge shall record the
evidence of the relevant witnesses and submit a report to
this Court within six months. To enable the teamed District
Judge to appreciate the facts of the case and also to enable
him to identify the witnesses to be
367
summoned, copies of writ petition, counter and rejoinder
alongwith the enclosed documents and affidavits shall be
forwarded to him. The learned District Judge shall examine
the deponents of the said affidavits, if they are available
and willing to come forward to give evidence, And all such
persons as he thinks appropriate in the circumstances and
make his report.
8. It is obvious that before commencing the enquiry, die
learned District Judge shall send notices to the petitioners
as well as the respondents.
9. List after the receipt of the report from the learned
District Judge, Churachandpur, Manipur.
370