SC’s Order for Probe Into Manipur’s Fake Encounters Ushers in Hope
Widow of an encounter victim said that the official version of her husband’s killing was a blatant lie.
advertisement
This is how a 37-year-old widow, Yaikhom Edina, reacted when she heard about the Supreme Court ordering a CBI probe into 98 alleged fake encounter killings and filing of chargesheets by 31 December 2017. She is the General Secretary of the Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) which is a co-petitioner of the writ petition to the Supreme Court.
EEVFAM and Human Rights Alert in their writ petition filed in 2012 alleged that from 1979 to 2012, over 1,528 cases of fake encounter killings had taken place in Manipur and that the state government had not conducted proper investigation to fix punishment for excessive use of force by the security forces operating in insurgency ravaged Manipur. EEVFAM was founded in 2009 and has 1,528 members.
The two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Uday Lalit on 14 July ordered the CBI to institute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) within two weeks, comprising five officers to probe the alleged extrajudicial killings.
Yaikhom Edina was widowed on 21 January 2009 when her husband Ningthoujam Anand was reported killed in an encounter with the Manipur Police Commandos at Makhan village in Senapati district.
Security forces claimed that Anand and a companion, Ph Kunjabihari Singh, fired upon the combined team of the Force when ordered to halt. In the ensuing gun-fight, the forces say Anand and Singh were shot dead. The FIR filed by the police mentioned recovery of an AK 47 rifle and a hand-grenade from the deceased.
‘Official Version a Blatant Lie’
Edina says this official version is a blatant lie and claims her husband was a hardworking family man, looking after his family and taking care of his mother who suffers from a heart ailment.
On 21 January 2009, she says Anand left on his scooter, carrying with him around Rs 2 lakhs as money for a kitty-fund, and never came back. Denying the police version that an AK 47 rifle and a grenade were recovered from his possession, Edina says they were planted to make the killing look like an encounter.
‘Justice Lies in Punishment for Perpetrators’
Another young widow, Neena Ningombam, former General Secretary of EEVFAM when the PIL was filed in 2012, narrates a similar story. On 4 November 2008, her husband Nongmaithem Michael left home after lunch only to be found shot dead by another combined team of Assam Rifles and Manipur Police Commandos.
Micheal was branded a terrorist and a hand-grenade planted by his side. Although Neena is one of the few who have successfully managed to win a legal battle, she feels real justice will come only when those security personnel involved in faking encounters are given befitting punishment.
While Neena is hopeful of the Supreme Court re-opening her case, Babloo Loitongbam, the executive director of Human Rights Alert, one of the petitioners in the case, said the Supreme Court judgement is a significant development in a long journey that the victims’ families as well as the people of Manipur have undertaken for justice.
Renu Takhellambam, the president of EEVFAM, whose husband Munhang Zou was also killed in an encounter in 2007, said she has been waiting for the Supreme Court judgement for a long time.
Renu’s husband case is enlisted among the cases to be probed by the SIT.
While the mood of the rights activists and families of the victims is optimistic, there remains grey areas like the ambit of the chargesheet being restricted only to those who pulled the trigger and not covering the people who gave the order.
Hopefully the CBI will make sure that the command responsibility will also be taken care of in the investigation of the 98 alleged cases of fake encounters in Manipur.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)