Directing the CBI to initiate proceedings for taking prosecution sanction, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Imphal West also observed that, “there is strong prima facie case pointing towards the guilt of the accused persons and that the closure report/final report has been submitted to shield the accused persons”.
Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Imphal West Y Somorjit Singh on Monday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to initiate proceedings for taking prosecution sanction as per law from the authorities concerned against the accused security forces in the fake-encounter case of one Jayenta on January 6, 2012.
In an order passed by the CJM, the CBI has been further directed to establish the “missing links/points highlighted” by the local court. “Liberty is given to the investigation agency/CBI to explore all possibilities for finding the truth of the present case and submit a subsequent report before the filing of final charge sheet or before committal of the present case to the higher Court, as the case may be”, said the order of the CJM.
The protest petition filed by the petitioners was allowed with the “aforesaid observation and direction to CBI”.
The court also observed that in the light of the submissions made, “there is strong prima facie case pointing towards the guilt of the accused persons and that the closure report/final report has been submitted to shield the accused persons”. The petitioners further submitted that the non-availability of records cannot be a ground for the closure of criminal investigation.
“These also show the investigation is only a perfunctory investigation. Also the petitioners/victims may be furnished with the evidence and documents collected during the investigation in order to enable the petitioners to assist the Hon’ble Court properly at the time of hearing of the present petition”, said the court.
The petitioners said that “the submission of the closure report/final report after perfunctory investigation is against the Principal of CRIL. MISC.(FR) CASE NO. 60 OF 2020 & CRIL. MISC. CASE NO. 154 OF 2020 (Ref: RC-21(S)2018/SC-III/ND dated 30/01/2018, U/S 307/34 IPC, 25(1-C) Arms Act, 20 UA(P) Act & 5 Expl. Substance Act. Ref: RCDST/2018/S/0013 dated. 27/02/2018, U/S 302 r/w 34 IPC.) Page of 35 of 42 Criminal Justice prevailing in India.”
Unless a fair and impartial investigation is made by the investigating authority, the victims shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, said the order of the CJM. The order also observed that the victims and others would lose their faith in the judiciary unless a fair and impartial investigation is carried out by the investigating agency. Thereafter, the court rejected the closure report and directed the IO of the case for further investigation and for taking cognizance against the accused persons in the interest of justice.
It may be mentioned that petitioner No.1 is the wife of deceased Wahengbam Jayenta Singh, who was shot dead by a combined team of Imphal West Police Commandos and a column of 10 Assam Rifles on the night of January 6, 2012. The petitioner No.2 is EEVFAM (Extra-judicial Execution Victims’ Families Association, Manipur). The Supreme Court had on July 14, 2017 passed an order directing the CBI to nominate a group of five officers to go through the records of the cases mentioned and asked the agency to lodge necessary FIRs and to complete the investigations. Accordingly, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted by CBI, vide Office Order No. 1416/2017 dated July 27, 2017 of the Administrative Division of DSPE, CBI, New Delhi.
The present case pertains to the extra-judicial execution of the husband of petitioner No.1. Accordingly, the CBI had registered the present FIR against some Manipur Police Commandos and personnel of Assam Rifles.CBI, CJM, Fake Encounter case