http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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