The court’s order marks a rare instance of the judiciary pushing back against the findings of CBI and insisting on a trial to ascertain the truth behind a long-pending allegation of an extra-judicial killing.
TFM Report
In a significant ruling, the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in Imphal West on October 28 rejected the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) closure report and ordered the initiation of criminal proceedings against 12 police and Assam Rifles personnel for the alleged fake encounter killings of two civilians, Nameirakpam Gobin and Nameirakpam Nobo, in 2009.
Calling the CBI’s investigation flawed and its conclusions “baseless,” CJM Sorokhaibam Sadananda held that there is sufficient prima-facie evidence to suggest that the actions of the security personnel amount to culpable homicide, attracting charges under Section 302 (murder) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.
The court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the 12 accused, directing them to appear on November 25, 2025. The case has been registered as a criminal case and will proceed towards committal to a higher court for trial.
Background of the Case
The incident dates back to the night of April 4, 2009. An FIR was lodged by the then SI, Huidrom Sukumar of CDO Imphal West, stating that based on reliable information about the presence of militants, a combined team of CDO personnel and 39 Assam Rifles rushed to the Lamphel-Games Village area. He claimed a 7-minute-long gunfight ensued with 4-5 unknown militants, resulting in the deaths of two, later identified as Gobin and Nobo. A pistol, a grenade, and empty cartridges were reportedly recovered from the spot.
The case was initially registered under various sections of the IPC, Arms Act, and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. However, following a petition by the Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association and Human Rights Alert, the Supreme Court intervened in 2012.
A commission headed by Justice Hedge, in its report dated March 30, 2018, concluded that the death of Gobin and Nobo was “not an encounter but an operation by the security forces wherein the death of the two victims was caused knowingly.” Acting on the Supreme Court’s direction, the CBI re-registered the case and took over the investigation.
CBI’s U-Turn and the Court’s Scrutiny
In a surprising turn, the CBI filed a closure report in November 2019, citing a lack of sufficient evidence to prosecute. The agency argued that the magisterial enquiry report supported the version of a “real encounter” and that the recovery of empty cartridges matching CDO weapons suggested fleeing accomplices of the deceased had fired back. The families of the deceased filed a protest petition, challenging the CBI’s findings.
In his detailed order, CJM Sadananda systematically dismantled the CBI’s reasoning. Key points of the court’s critique include:
Ignoring the Hedge Commission: The court found it “quite strange” that the CBI based its findings solely on the magisterial enquiry while ignoring the contrary findings of the Justice Hedge Commission, which was constituted on the orders of the Supreme Court.
Faulty Seizure Procedure: The court raised serious doubts about the seizure of weapons from the spot by the encounter team itself, instead of the nearby Lamphel Police Station, calling it a violation of due procedure. It refused to accept the recovery as “genuine at face value.”
Victims Were Civilians: The court established that both deceased were civilians. Gobin had no criminal record, and an old case against Nobo had been closed by a court in 2003. The CBI’s own investigation found nothing to show they were criminals or active militants.
Self-Defence Claim Untenable: The court ruled that the claim of a “real encounter” or self-defence is a ground of defence to be proven during a trial, not a reason to close the case at the threshold. The death of two civilians in police action, it held, “requires judicial scrutiny.”
No Sanction for Prosecution Required
In a crucial legal decision, the court held that no prosecution sanction is required under Section 197 CrPC or the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) to try the accused.
For the 10 police personnel, the court ruled they cannot be said to be acting in the discharge of official duties, as “police have no power to use force to the point of causing death to any person.”
Regarding the two Assam Rifles personnel, including the then Major C. Sreeram, the court held their very presence was “illegal.” It noted the encounter site was outside a notified “disturbed area” under AFSPA, there was no prohibitory order in force, and they had received no requisition to be present. Therefore, they were not entitled to any immunity.
This finding is significant as it paves the way for a trial without requiring permission from the central government, a hurdle that has often stalled prosecution of security forces in conflict zones.
Note on A Decorated Officer
One of the accused, the then Major C. Sreeram, has been in the news before. As reported by Hueiyen News Service, in a previous case, Major Sreeram has been named in alleged encounter cases in Manipur, highlighting a pattern of serious allegations against him.
The court’s order marks a rare instance of the judiciary pushing back against the findings of a central investigating agency and insisting on a trial to ascertain the truth behind a long-pending allegation of an extra-judicial killing. It brings a glimmer of hope to the victims’ families who have been seeking justice for over 15 years.