Questions that have arisen from the proceedings that took place in Thounaojam Herojit`s case on 25/2/16 in the Court of District and Session Judge, M. Manoj. These questions naturally arose in the mind of a critical thinker to test the veracity of the happenings at the Court that day. These questions are presumably doing the rounds among the legal circles of the State and need answers.
Why Th Herojit submitted for providing new defence counsel on the ground he cited (that he is not able to engage a lawyer on his own expense)?
What happened to the previous counsel who was representing his case?
Was it the expenses or some other declination from pertinent individuals that made him request another defence counsel?
Number 3 is to be answered by the previous defence counsel of Herojit and Herojit himself.
Was Herojit not paying his earlier counsel`s fee for representing him in the case?
Why this sudden turn of event on ground of expenses? Or it there more than that meets the eye? Are the people fed with only that fits the stronger parties’ bills?
Was there any tacit or direct declination on part of the previous counsel to represent Herojit anymore in the case?
Was it expenses and fee related? The public or CSOs could have chipped in to bear the legal expenses.
If not, what was the reason of the declination?
More questions will follow once the answers come.
We can all presume Herojit is already neck deep in apprehension, and will it serve the just cause if we continue to increase his apprehension. The pressure is immense on his frail body, considering the nature of his previous confession- a confession that managed to even draw the national media into this much neglected part of the country.
Herojit is at the moment between the proverbial devil and the deep sea. On the one side is his conscience encouraging him to bring out the truth fully aware of the impending consequences, while on the other side seem to be many ‘pillars’.
The civil organisations which had been almost sleeping also seem to have woken up and girding up to bring out the truth. However, let’s leave this aside for a future discussion and consider the more immediate question.
It is pertinent to note here that in earlier occasion, Herojit had explicitly expressed his want, when he was asked if he wanted security arrangement for him and his family, that he does not wish to seek security for himself and his family but that he has come out to sacrifice for a better future where all the children of the future are safe and free from people as him. He declined the offer of the Court to provide him state security.
Secondly, Herojit has always pleaded guilty of the charges labelled against him in the present case. His public confession and admission on oath have clearly illucidated that he has only re-affirmed his guilt plea on the charges labeled against him in the case. He had already confessed in the course of the investigation too to his crime (however, it is yet to find out if there was any judicial confession made on this during the course of investigation by the CBI). He has further sworn on oath that he does not seek to plea bargain and turn government approver of the case, in case of which Herojit needs to change his counsel. But, he has seeked no pardon nor forgiveness for his crime. He stands tall to accept any quantum of punishment meted out to him, in for his crime, by the Judiciary as well as the public. He has not retracted on any of his statements so far in relation to the case. In fact, Herojit absolved his eight comrade-in-arms from the case. So, does the case of Herojit having conflict of interest bet
ween Herojit and his previous counsel necessarily arise?
The case is open to the Court and the People.
Perhaps, with more questions than answers, Res Judicata (final judgement ) to all the victims of this violence has to be brought by the people themselves.
Leader Writer: Paojel Chaoba