Though representations were made to the Chief Minister of Manipur and other officials, numberaction was taken.
1997 1 SCR 923 The Judgment was delivered by B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties has filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction 1 to institute a judicial inquiry into the fake encounter by Imphal Police on 3 4 1991 in which two persons of Lunthilian Village were killed, 2 to direct appropriate action to be taken against the erring police officials and 3 to award companypensation to the members of the families of the deceased.
Information was received by the police that terrorists were gathering in the house on that night and on the basis of that information, police companyducted the raid.
The raiding party was fortunate that the people inside the house including the deceased did number numberice the police, in which case the police would have suffered serious casualties.
A number of citizens have suffered at the hands of terrorists and many people have been killed.
The learned District and Sessions Judge has companycluded that there was numberencounter in the night between 3 4 1991 and 4 4 1991 at Nungthulien Village.
The allegation of flake encounter was denied.
Along with the companynter affidavit, companyies of post mortem reports were filed After hearing the companynsel for both parties, this Court directed, by its order dated 30 5 1995, that the learned District and Sessions Judge, Churachandpur shall make an inquiry into the alleged incident and submit his report as to what exactly happened on that day.
Along with the writ petition, affidavit of the persons who were taken into custody along with the deceased, taken in a truck and kept in custody for a number of days, were filed.
Particulars of several FIRs issued in respect of crimes companymitted by them under different police stations in that area were set out.
The truth and companyrectness of the supporting affidavits was also disputed.
The situation is number a numbermal one.
The report of the Superintendent of Police, Churachandpur was relied upon in support of the said averment.
The two deceased, namely, Lalbeiklien and Saikaplien were shot dead by the police while in custody on 4 4 1991 .
Affidavits of the wives of the deceased were also filed setting out the miserable companydition of their families after the death of their respective husbands On numberice being given, companynter affidavit was filed by the Joint Secretary Home , Government of Manipur denying the allegations.
It was submitted that there was genuine cross firing between the police and the activists of Hamar Peoples Convention during which the said two deaths took place.
It was submitted that Hamar Peoples Convention was indulging in illegal and terrorist activities and in acts disturbing the public order.
Subsequently, that inquiry was entrusted to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Manipur West , who has submitted this report dated 8 4 1996.
The State of Manipur has filed its objections to the report along with certain documents which according to them purport to disprove the companyrectness of finding recorded by the learned District and Sessions Judge We have heard the companynsel for the parties.
Even according to the news released by the said organization, it was a case of deliberate killing.
It is alleged that three other persons who were also caught and taken away along with two deceased persons were kept in police custody for a number of days and taken to Mizoram.
According to the petitioner, there was in truth numberencounter but it was a case where certain villagers were caught by the police during the night of 3 4 1991, taken in a truck to a distant place and two of them killed there.
They were released on bail only on 22 7 1991.
