Back
2020 Supreme(Manipur) 25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Ahanthem Ibotombi Singh and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
The Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. - Respondent
Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009
Decided On : 24-02-2020
For the Appellant :T. Rajendra, Advocate
For the Respondents: W. Darakishwor, Sr. Panel Counsel
Headnote:
Criminal Revision - Charge Framing - Sections 304 and 34 IPC - [VOTING DUTY] - [IPC 304, IPC 34] - The court discussed the framing of charges against the petitioners and one Vungdam Ngaihte under Sections 304 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in relation to an incident during their voting duty. The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that there was a prima facie case to frame charges against the petitioners and Vungdam Ngaihte. The court emphasized that the determination of the truth behind the incident would require oral and documentary evidence during the trial. The court also highlighted the legal principle that strong suspicion of the commission of the offense is sufficient to justify framing charges, and the judge has the power to weigh the evidence for this purpose. The court dismissed the criminal revision petition and directed the trial judge to make sincere efforts for the early completion of the case, considering the age of the petitioners. The petitioners were exempted from personal appearance except when directed by the trial court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, along with others, were appointed for voting duty in a remote village. During the duty, a person of unsound mind attacked and assaulted the petitioners and another individual. The deceased, armed with a knife, attacked the petitioners and another person while they were asleep. The deceased later succumbed to self-inflicted injuries. Subsequently, the CBI filed a charge sheet against the petitioners and Vungdam Ngaihte under Sections 304, 201, 342, and 34 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a prima facie case to frame charges against the petitioners and Vungdam Ngaihte under Sections 304 and 34 IPC. The court emphasized that the determination of the truth behind the incident would require oral and documentary evidence during the trial. The court dismissed the criminal revision petition and directed the trial judge to make sincere efforts for the early completion of the case, considering the age of the petitioners. The petitioners were exempted from personal appearance except when directed by the trial court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the framing of charges against the petitioners and Vungdam Ngaihte under Sections 304 and 34 IPC in relation to the incident during their voting duty. The petitioners contested the framing of charges, arguing that the charge sheet did not fulfill the necessary ingredients for framing charges and that the findings in the impugned order were contradictory to the record.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that strong suspicion of the commission of the offense is sufficient to justify framing charges, and the judge has the power to weigh the evidence for this purpose. The court also highlighted that the determination of the truth behind the incident would require oral and documentary evidence during the trial. The court dismissed the criminal revision petition and directed the trial judge to make sincere efforts for the early completion of the case, considering the age of the petitioners. The petitioners were exempted from personal appearance except when directed by the trial court.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was dismissed, and the trial judge was directed to make sincere efforts for the early completion of the case, considering the age of the petitioners. The petitioners were exempted from personal appearance except when directed by the trial court.
JUDGMENT :
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
1. The petitioners have filed the instant revision seeking to set aside the order dated 24.9.2009 of the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur West passed in S.T. Case No. 1 of 2009, wherein and whereby the learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the petitioners and one Vungdam Ngaihte under Section 304 and 34 IPC. In the revision, the petitioners are also seeking to quash the proceedings of S.T. Case No. 1 of 2009.
2. According to the petitioners, petitioner no. 1 was working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in District Veterinary Office, Churachandpur; petitioner no. 2 was working as Section Officer in the office of the Executive Engineer; Churachandpur Division and petitioner no. 3 was working as an Assistant Teacher in Gelmon Khuman J.B. School of District Autonomous Council, Churachandpur, Manipur.
3. The petitioners along with one Vungdam Ngaihte (then working as a Peon in the office of the District Statistical Office, Churachandpur, Manipur) and one Kimkhollung Kamei (now dead, then working as a Draftsman in the District Statistical Office, Churachandpur, Manipur) were appointed as Presiding Officer and Polling Officers of 56/20, Songtal Government High School for the election of Outer Manipur Parliamentary Constituency fixed on 24.11.1989 under the orders of the District Election Officer, Churachandpur dated 08.11.1989.
4. Songtal is a very remote village and for going to Songtal, one has to go by jeep and then by foot. Songtal village has no proper infrastructure for roads and there is a big communication gap. The petitioners along with Vungdam Ngaihte, Kimkhollung Kamei and four unarmed security guards proceeded to Songtal from Churachandpur in the morning of 22.11.1989 and they arrived at Songtal village on 23.11.1989 and halted the night there in preparation for the poll to be held on 24.11.1989. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 stayed the night of 23.11.1989 at the house of one W. Achou Singh, who was a teacher of Songtal High School and the remaining party including the security personnel stayed the night at the Community Hall.
5. The deceased Kimkhollung Kamel, who was later known to be a person of unsound mind and having mental disorders, armed with a knife attacked and assaulted the petitioner no. 3 and Vungdam Ngaihte at about 3.00 AM on 24.11.1989 while they were fast asleep. On being informed about the crime committed by the said deceased, a hue and cry was raised in the village. Petitioner no. 1 sent message through a special messenger to the SDO/SDM, Thanion about the incident and also requested urgent medical and police assistance and accordingly, he was trying to arrange medical assistance. The SDO/SDM, Thanion lodged a report to the OC Thanlon PS, who registered FIR No. 7(11)89 under Section 326 IPC against the deceased.
6. Some of the polling party and a large number of villagers pursued the deceased when he fled away so as to prevent him from committing similar crimes and from inflicting himself with injury. The deceased was found with injuries in his abdomen by the polling parties and the villagers. The petitioner no. 1 instructed some of the unarmed security guards to look after the deceased by securing him at a safe place until the expected medical team and police force arrived. The poll started at 7.00 AM on 24.11.1989 and the petitioners and Vungdam Ngaihte had performed their duties till late evening on that date. The deceased, however, was reported to have succumbed to his self inflicted injuries in the morning of 25.11.1989.
7. According to the petitioners, regarding the death of the deceased, Thanlon PS initially registered U.D. Case No. 1 of 1989 and later on registered FIR No. 2(3)90. Apprehending arrest, petitioner no. 1 applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur, who granted interim bail on 28.3.1990. Similarly, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 along with Vungdam Ngaihte were also released on ball.
8. The petitioners and Vungdam Ngaihte have filed an appl
