IMPHAL, March 29: The District and Sessions Judge, Imphal West today reserved its judgement in the two miscellaneous cases file by Th Herojit and Sanjit’s mother, Taratombi, in connection with the infamous 2009 BT road fake encounter killing.
While the judgement has been reserved to be declared tomorrow, the argument with regards to the cases filed before the court concluded after much deliberation by the counsels of the petitioners and defences.
Section 173(8) of the CrPC, once again was the centre of the argument in today’s hearing.
Senior advocate Khaidem Mani, counsel of Taratombi, based on references of similar cases placed by him before for the court, observed that none of the cases referred ruled out possibility of the power of the court to give direction for ‘further investigation’.
Claiming that the differences were only in the interpretations of the respective judgements, he reiterated the need to give direction to the CBI, taking into consideration of the confession made Herojit.
Ch Taratombi, petitioned the District and Sessions Judge, Imphal West (under section 137 (8)) pleading the court for directing the CBI to cause further investigation of the criminal case under FIR No. RCIMPH2010-S0001(RC.1 (A)2010/IMPHH/CBI Fire number on the basis of extra judicial confession made by accused Thounaojam Herojit Singh in the killing of Chungkham Sanjit Singh on July 23, 2009.
Advocate Ibochou, representing Herojit, questioning the intention of the CBI with regards to the new development (Herojit’s statement), lamented on the failure of the CBI to exercise their ‘statutory rights’.
“Does the CBI consider the development as a joke”, he posed.
Herojit filed the petition as criminal miscellaneous case number 20 of 2016 Reference Session Trial number 7 of 2010 on February 2016, pleading for allowing to give ‘full and true disclosure’ of the July 23 incident.
Advocate Ibomcha, the counsel of the CBI, in his response, questioned the counsel of the petitioners under which Act or provision should the media report (Herojit’s statement) be admissible by the court.
He further questioned the failure of Herojit to give his statement, the ‘full and true disclosure’ of the July 23 incident as described by Herojit, to the CBI earlier?
“Is Herojit’s intention is to hamper the ongoing trials of the July 23 incident”, said Ibomcha.
At the same time, the advocate reiterated that the CBI is still doing its job and awaiting court’s order in connection with the case.
Advocate Lakhikant, maintained that the section 173(8) at the present juncture can be upholded by a higher court with constitutional power.
Claiming Herojit’s confession was media report and not evidence submitted by him to the CBI, he observed that the matter be placed before competent Court in everyone’s interest failing which it could be reduced to a ‘farce’.
Senior advocate, H Chandrajit, also gave his opinion on the relevance of the section 173(8).
Having heard from the counsels on the matter the judgement was reserved by the Court.
Nevertheless, the court taking into consideration the time factor, proceeded with the deposition of Prosecution Witnesses (PWs).
Subsequently, Human Rights Alert (HRA) Executive Director, Babloo Loitongbam, one of the PWs today deposed before the Court.
He confessed to have provided the sequences of photos published in Tahelka Magazine, just before Sanjit was killed.
However, he declined to confide the name of the source, who provided him the photos, as requested by the latter before adding that he can identify the person (source) if paraded before him.
The deposition of PWs has been scheduled on April 15.