2009-09-08 | 07:05:33
Imphal, September 07: Full hearing on the city police failure to register FIR case as per complaint lodged by the husband of the Th Rabina who was killed in a shoot out at Khwairamband Bazar on July 23 started today in the court of justice Ashok Potshangbam of Gauhati High Court, Imphal bench.
State DGP counter charged that the photographs and reports published in the Tehelka news magazine about the killing of Sanjit as fake ones and make up story in the counter affidavit submitted through his counsel advocate N Kumarjit to the court during the hearing.
In the affidavit, it also claimed that the statement given by the chief minister, O Ibobi in the floor of the state Assembly as true apart from commenting that there is no reason for registering another FIR case in the same incident as City Police has already taken an FIR case on the incident.
During the hearing, government counsel, senior advocated Th Ibohal and counsel of the DGP, N Kumarjit argued citing rulings of the Supreme Court and High Court that said that City police station had already registered an FIR case with regard to the incident. With this reason behind, no necessary arises for registering another FIR case when another complaint on the same incident comes up.
On other hand, the counsel of mother in-law of Rabina, Thokchom Mema who filed the case against non-register of FIR case, advocate Khaidem Mani while giving his argument said that objected the observation of the government and DGP counsel on the basis of other rulings of the Supreme Court and High Court and insisted that police should register FIR case based on the complaint lodged by husband of the deceased Rabina, Chinglensana.
City police taken up an FIR case on the July 23 shooting incident based on the report filed by one Herojit, a police commando personnel under section 302/326/307/536 of IPC and under section 25 (1-B) of section 17/20 of UA (P) A Act. The case was registered against the deceased Ch Sanjit who was killed in the shoot out. There was no ruling from any court that a case cannot be registered based on the complaint lodged by the husband of the killed woman in the same incident, Mani argued.
In the complaint note of husband of Rabina, it was stated in the police firing on that day Rabina died while five other injure.
In the writ petition of Mema, it can be mentioned that she prayed the court to direct the state government to investigate the case to an independent body like the CBI and award adequate compensation to the victims.
State DGP counter charged that the photographs and reports published in the Tehelka news magazine about the killing of Sanjit as fake ones and make up story in the counter affidavit submitted through his counsel advocate N Kumarjit to the court during the hearing.
In the affidavit, it also claimed that the statement given by the chief minister, O Ibobi in the floor of the state Assembly as true apart from commenting that there is no reason for registering another FIR case in the same incident as City Police has already taken an FIR case on the incident.
During the hearing, government counsel, senior advocated Th Ibohal and counsel of the DGP, N Kumarjit argued citing rulings of the Supreme Court and High Court that said that City police station had already registered an FIR case with regard to the incident. With this reason behind, no necessary arises for registering another FIR case when another complaint on the same incident comes up.
On other hand, the counsel of mother in-law of Rabina, Thokchom Mema who filed the case against non-register of FIR case, advocate Khaidem Mani while giving his argument said that objected the observation of the government and DGP counsel on the basis of other rulings of the Supreme Court and High Court and insisted that police should register FIR case based on the complaint lodged by husband of the deceased Rabina, Chinglensana.
City police taken up an FIR case on the July 23 shooting incident based on the report filed by one Herojit, a police commando personnel under section 302/326/307/536 of IPC and under section 25 (1-B) of section 17/20 of UA (P) A Act. The case was registered against the deceased Ch Sanjit who was killed in the shoot out. There was no ruling from any court that a case cannot be registered based on the complaint lodged by the husband of the killed woman in the same incident, Mani argued.
In the complaint note of husband of Rabina, it was stated in the police firing on that day Rabina died while five other injure.
In the writ petition of Mema, it can be mentioned that she prayed the court to direct the state government to investigate the case to an independent body like the CBI and award adequate compensation to the victims.
No comments:
Post a Comment