Security forces are liable for the disappearance of a person in their custody.

( 1 ) THE High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, in its Imphal Bench, allowed the habeas corpus petition filed by the first respondent and awarded a sum of rupees one lakh to her, having found that her husband had been last seen in the custody of the security forces and had not been produced.

( 2 ) THE locale of the events that gave rise to the writ petition is the State of Manipur, a disturbed area in which the security forces had been deployed to maintain law and order. It was the case of the first respondent that her husband Budha Singh had been taken away by army personnel on 6-11-1983. Budha Singhs brother Pishak Singh had on 7-11-1983 visited the army camp concerned and enquired about Budha Singh but no information was given to him. The brother informed the first respondent of this and a complaint was lodged with the officer in charge of Lamlai Police Station. Various attempts to locate Budha Singh were thereafter made, but to no effect. In December 1983 the writ petition was filed.

( 3 ) THE writ petition was heard 5 years later, but no trace of Budha Singh had been found.

( 4 ) THE case of the appellants was that on 6-11-1983 Budha Singh, who indulged in anti-national activities, had been contacted by and had voluntarily accompanied the security forces. This happened again on 7-11- 1983 when Budha Singh led a column of security forces which, in the early hours of 8-11-1983, was taken by him to an abandoned hut, allegedly the meeting place of extremists, near Village Champhong. When no extremists were found in the hut, Budha Singh requested to be allowed to consult the headman to ascertain the exact location of the extremists hideout. He said that he would return by noon. He requested that no security personnel should accompany him lest he be identified as an informer. Accordingly, he was not accompanied by security personnel and, according to the appellants, he did not return.

( 5 ) IT is the case of the appellants that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition on 9-1-1984, the Superintendent, CID had sent a message to the inspector, CID, Ukhrul informing him that Budha Singh had been seen on a motorcycle with one Biren Singh from Keibi Village on 3-1-1984 and a copy of this message was sent to the relevant army command. On 4-4-1984 havildar Ranjit Singh had seen Budha Singh at 1000 hours near Humine. This was when three persons were found moving around in suspicious circumstances but, when approached to carry out a search, had moved towards the international border and could not be apprehended.

( 6 ) THE High Court rejected the appellants case in paras 4 and 5 of its judgment, which we quote in extenso:"to lend assurance to the case of the army, Respondents 2 and 3 filed additional affidavit on 12-12-1984 enclosing as Annexure I a WT message dated 9-1-1984 from the Superintendent of Police/cid, manipur that Budha Singh was seen on a motorcycle with one Biren singh on 3-l-1984 at Lamleng Gate while they were proceeding towards ukhrul. This WT message does not inspire any confidence inasmuch as in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Manipur on 5-3-1984 nothing has been stated about this WT message. According to the State, after the Chief Minister had received a representation from the petitioner on 5-12-1983, all concerned were requested to find out Budha Singh; and so if the State police would have located Budha Singh, the State machinery must have been acquainted about it, as even the Chief minister had been approached to find out Budha Singh. The source of information is also vague as it speaks that the matter was reliably learnt. Who is the author of the information is not known. This apart, there is no supporting material to assure our minds about the truthfulness of the news sent by the WT message in question. To lend credence to the wt message, Biren Singh, whose mention has been made in the communication, could have been asked to file an affidavit