Manipur High Court
Shri Ahanthem Ibotombi Singh vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 24 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MPR 46
Author: M.V. Muralidaran
Bench: M.V. Muralidaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009
1. Shri Ahanthem Ibotombi Singh, aged about
50 years, S/O A. Nabakumar Singh of
Keishamthong Ahanthem Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
2. Shri T. Jangkhongam Haokip, aged about 44
years, S/O T. Thangkhulun Haokip of
Molnom Village, P.O. & P.S. Churachandpur,
Churachandpur District, Manipur.
3. Shri Seikhojang, aged about 58 years, S/O
late Lengkhojam of M. Songgel Village, P.O.
& P.S. Churachandpur, Churachandpur
District, Manipur.
.... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.)
ACB, G.S. Road, Dipannita Complex, Near
Down Town Hospital, Guwahati-781006.
....... Respondent
2. The State of Manipur ....... Proforma Respondent BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN For the petitioners : Mr. T. Rajendra, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. W. Darakishwor,
Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 1
Sr. Panel Counsel for the
CBI
Date of hearing : 14.10.2019
Date of Judgment & Order : 24.02.2020
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
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, Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 2 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 Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 3 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 Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 4 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 application being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.7 of 1990 before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench for quashing of FIR Case No.2(3)90. By an order dated 17.4.1990, the Gauhati High Court granted interim direction not to arrest the petitioners till the disposal of the case. Later, FIR Case No.2(3)90 was transferred to C.I.D. Crime Branch and the same was investigated by the said agency. However, no offence was found against the petitioners and the investigating officer has submitted a final report dated 12.9.1990 before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churachandpur. In view of the final report submitted by the IO, the petitioners have made a prayer before the Gauhati High Court to withdraw Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.7 of 1990 with liberty to file afresh, if required, and the said prayer was granted by the Court. The final report submitted by the IO was accepted by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churachandpur and passed an order on 21.12.1990 in criminal Miscellaneous Case No.12 of 1990 discharging the petitioners and setting aside their personal and surety bonds.
Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 5
9. According to the petitioners, the wife of the deceased Kimkhollung Kamei, filed W.P.(C) No.118 of 1999 before the Gauhati High Court, lmphal Bench praying for re-investigation of the case. By an order dated 12.3.2007, after an elaborate discussion, the Gauhati High Court directed the C.B.I. to re-investigate the case. Though the petitioners were not made parties in the said writ petition, on coming to know the order dated 12.3.2007, the petitioners along with Vungdam Ngaihte have preferred an appeal being W.A.No.60 of 2008 along with application in MC (WA) No.62 of 2008 seeking leave to file an appeal. In the leave application, the Gauhati High Court directed the IO of the CBI to investigate the case in accordance with law without being influenced by anybody including any portion of the observation made in the order dated 12.3.2007.
10. Pursuant to the order of the Gauhati High Court date 12.3.2007, the CBI registered Case No.RC-8(S)/2007 and submitted charge sheet before the Learned CJM, Churachandpur alleging the offences under Sections 304, 201, 342 and 34 IPC against the petitioners and Vungdam Ngaihte and the same was registered as Criminal (P) Case No.8 of 2009. Thereafter, the Learned CJM, Churachandpur committed the case to the learned Sessions judge, Manipur West, who registered the case in S.T. No.1 of 2009 and by an order dated 24.9.2009, the learned Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 6 Sessions Judge, Manipur West, framed charge against the petitioners and Vungdam Ngaihte under Sections 304 and 34 IPC. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed the present revision petition.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge sheet submitted by the CBI does not under any circumstances made out the alleged offence and the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the case of the petitioners that re-charge is made out against them. He would submit that the basic ingredient of Section 304 IPC has not been fulfilled and there is nothing in the charge sheet that the injuries to the deceased were inflicted by the petitioners and further the deceased died due to the acts committed by the petitioners. The death of the deceased has no connection whatsoever with the petitioners or their contact and therefore, the impugned order dated 24.9.2009 is not sustainable in the eye of law.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the statements of prosecution witnesses 1 to 4 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reveal that they are the security personnels accompanying the petitioners, the deceased and Vungdam Ngaihte in the said polling duty at Songtal Government High School and they tied both hands of the deceased on the back side and also his legs with creepers and paya. Therefore, as per the charge sheet, the said prosecution witnesses 1 to Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 7 4 are the persons directly responsible for confining the deceased and if any sort of allegations is to be made for the death of the deceased, it should be against the said prosecution witnesses 1 to 4 and not against the petitioners. The said fact has not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge and instead passed the impugned order dated 24.09.2009 and that the finding in the impugned order are contradictory to record and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after examination of the materials produced, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there was scuffling between the deceased and accused nos.3 and 4 and that the deceased was not provided any medical treatment or have not taken steps for causing treatment of the injuries of the victim by the accused persons. Noting the acts of the accused persons, the learned Sessions Judge rightly framed charge against the petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that the innocence pleaded by the petitioners will be decided only after conclusion of the trial and not at the initial stage. Therefore, the order of the learned Sessions Judge is perfectly correct and there is no need to interfere with the same. The respondent prayed this Court to dismiss this Criminal Revision Petition.
Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 8
14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.
15. The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioners on the ground that the CBI does not come with the real factual position of the spot, the place where the deceased was found and the place where the petitioner nos.1 and 2 stayed the night, the place where the deceased was alleged to have been tied, the place where the election was held etc. to sustain a charge against them. In such circumstances, the charge sheet of the CBI does not fulfill the necessary ingredients of framing a charge under Section 304 and 34 IPC against the petitioners. It is also the say of the petitioners that the charge sheet filed by the CBI is based on tailored evidence and also on other irrelevant grounds and there are lot of contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
16. Pursuant to the order passed by the Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No.118 of 1999 dated 12.3.2007 filed by wife of the deceased Kimkhollung Kamei, the respondent CBI took up the investigation of the instant case. Admittedly, in the said writ petition, the petitioners were not parties. However, looking into the prayer made therein, it is not necessary for the wife of the deceased to implead the petitioners herein Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 9 as parties in the said writ petition. Considering the arguments put forth by the learned counsel appearing on either side, the learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court recorded the finding in the said writ petition as under:
"12. After arguing at length, the learned Govt. Advocate offered to get the FIR re-investigated through normal police agency, since it is permissible under Sec.173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, this offer could not be accepted by me for few reasons. Firstly, a number of government officials are involved in the alleged murder. Secondly, the witnesses also include government officers who had direct knowledge of the incident and despite this fact, they have suppressed the truth with oblique motive. Thirdly, the role of the police investigating officer and the way the sordid investigation has been done also indicates that the police agency was heIl-bent to protect the culprits. I say so because not a single suspect was taken into custody/arrested. Fourthly, the investigation has already been done by a senior officer of the State CID. Hence, further investigation cannot be allowed to be done by the same agency or any other inferior Investigating agency. Fifthly, the Final Report of suicide has also been approved by Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 10 the Superintendent of Police (CID). Hence, any direction for further investigation by the State Police department or through CID would be of no consequences as the new IO will also be highly influenced by the previous report.
13. In the ordinary course, I would have preferred to repose my faith on the State Police Department and the Central Agency i.e., CBI would not have been involved in such a case of single murder.
However, the reasons for entrusting the investigation to the CBI have been spelt out in the preceding paragraph. In my considered opinion, an Investigating officer from the CBI will be less likely to be influenced not only by the accused persons but also by the previous investigation.
14. For the foregoing reasons, I direct the Joint Director of CBI, Eastern Region, Guwahati, Assam to get investigated the present case of murder of Mr. Kimkhollung Kamei of Ragailung (Pandol), Imphal West District. The IO appointed by the Joint Director of CBI shall be entitled to take possession of the case diary from the State CID and other documents for the purpose of fresh investigation."
17. The investigation of the respondent CBI revealed that the actual knife used in the offence which belonged to the first petitioner was Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 11 replaced by him with criminal intention to cause disappearance of evidence of the offence and a wrong ordinary knife with top portion broken was produced by the first petitioner which was seized by the Inspector of Police, Thanlon PS in connection with U.D. Case No.1 of 1989. The investigation further revealed that nobody saw that the deceased stabbing himself in the morning of 24.11.1989 in the uphill of the Community Hall to commit suicide himself. The said conclusion arrived at by the IO is based on the examination of the then Songtal village authorities. Thus, the IO arrived at his prima facie conclusion that the death of the deceased Kimkhollung Kamei was not a suicidal, but culpable homicidal committed by the petitioners and Vungdam Ngaihte and accordingly, filed the charge sheet before the Learned CJM, Churachandpur, Manipur on 04.02.2009 against the petitioners and Vungdam Ngaihte under Sections 304, 201, 342/34 IPC. The Learned CJM, Churachandpur took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur West, who in turn taken the case on its file as S.T. Case No.1 of 2009. After notice to the petitioners/accused and upon hearing the respective counsels, by the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur West, framed charge against the petitioners/accused under Section 304 and 34 IPC.
Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 12
18. On a perusal of the records, this Court finds that the cause of death of the deceased was due to excessive bleeding of the injuries. The statement of the Doctor is also to the effect that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. The investigation done by the CBI revealed that there was fight between the deceased and accused persons in the early morning of 24.11.1989 at around 3.30 AM and during the course, the deceased sustained injuries and the petitioners/accused have failed to arrange to give medical treatment to the deceased.
19. The Investigation further revealed that in the scene of crime in the early hours of 24.11.1989 at Songtal Community Hall, the only persons available were the third petitioner and Vungdam Ngaihte and four unarmed security personnel. It is the report of the IO of CBI that the villagers did not see that the deceased Kimkhollung Kamei stabbing himself when he was found in the uphill side. Whereas, the petitioners and Vungdam Ngaihte having felt guilty for their crime obtained a false certificate under the signature of Chairman/Chief and Secretary of Songtal village to the effect that Kimkhollung Kamei had committed suicide by injuring himself with knife. That apart the illegal omission done by the petitioners was that after the deceased was detained, a report was sent under the signature of petitioner no.1 to SDO, Thanlon stating Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 13 that Kimkhollung Kamei suddenly became abnormal and on 24.11.1989 at 3.00 A.M., the deceased started attacking and petitioner no.3 and Vungdam Ngaihte were hurt seriously on the belly and head respectively with sharp knife and Kimkhollung Kamei had escaped along the knife and requested to make appropriate steps and for medical assistance. However, the stab injuries sustained by the deceased were not mentioned in the said report. For sending such a false report, petitioner no.1 has no explanation except that it was his mistake. In fact, the report was sent through special messengers who left Songtal village after the deceased was caught and tied, which was clearly stated by the statement of Kaikhanpao.
20. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the learned Sessions Judge cannot act merely as a post office or mouthpiece of the prosecution and he has to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether prima facie case has been made out. He further submitted that where two views are equally possible and evidence gives raise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion, the Judge can discharge the accused. Taking note of the entire facts on record, this Court is of the view that the learned Sessions Judge, after considering the materials produced before him, has framed the charge against the petitioners and Vungdam Ngaihte and this Court Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 14 finds that the present case requires oral and documentary evidence to know about the real truth behind the death of the deceased Kimkhollung Kamei. For the said reason, earlier when the wife of the deceased approached the Gauhati High Court, the Gauhati High Court rightly directed the CBI to investigate the case and accordingly, the CBI investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the petitioners and Vungdam Ngaihte.
21. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 476, the learned counsel for lo the respondent CBl argued that even strong suspicion in regard to commission of the offence would be sufficient to justify framing of charges and that the respondent CBl has rightly filed the charge sheet against the petitioners and Vungdam Ngaite, who are the persons involved in the Instant crime.
22. In Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court summarised the legal position as under:
"20. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 where this Court was examining a similar question in the context of Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The legal position was summed up as under:
Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 15 "10.Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to silt and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Whether the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified In framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 16 the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basis infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weight the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
23. In the present case, as stated supra, the allegations against the petitioners and Vungdam Ngaihte are specific. Whether or not the allegations levelled against the petitioners and Vungdam Ngaihte are true Is a matter which cannot be determined at the stage of framing of charge and any such determination can take place only at the conclusion of the trial.
24. Framing of charge is a kind of tentative view that the trial Court forms In terms of Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is subject to final culmination of the proceedings. The legislature in its wisdom has used the expression "there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence". This has an inbuilt element of presumption once the ingredients of an offence with reference to the allegations made are satisfied, the Court would not doubt the case of the prosecution unduly and extend its jurisdiction to quash the charge in haste.
Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 17
25. In the Instant case, after notice to the petitioners in ST. Case No.1 of 2009, they were heard for framing charges and upon perused the materials produced before him, the learned Sessions Judge, came to the conclusion that there are materials to frame charge against the petitioners and Vungdam Ngaihte. In this regard, the order of the learned Sessions Judge impugned in this revision reads thus:
"Accused present with their counsel. C.B.I. counsel also present. Heard further. Perused the record. The Ld. C.B.I. counsel submitted that there is strong prima facie case against the accused U/s 304 and 34 I.P.C. and prayed for framing charge under the above section against the accused. The Ld. defence counsel have already submitted that there is no enough material for framing charge against the accused for the said death/murder of the victim Kimkhollung Kamei Polling Officer No.2 of 56/20 Songtal Govt. High School Polling Station for the year 1989 Outer Manipur Parliamentary Election.
The M.O. who conducted post mortem examination of the death body of the deceased stated that the cause of death of the deceased was due to excessive bleeding of the injuries (prolong internal and external haemorage) and antemortem in nature. The MO in his statement Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 18 recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. also stated that the death of the deceased is a case of homicidal in nature. The materials on record revealed that there was fighting/scuffling each other among the deceased with accused No.3 and 4 the Community Hall in the early morning of 24.11.1989 at around 3.30 am. It is also on record that the injured was not provided any medical treatment or that have not taken step for causing treatment of the injuries of the victim by the accused who are Presiding Officer (A-1), Polling Officer No.1 (A-2), Polling Officer No.3 (A-3) and Polling Peon (A-4) who are party for the said Election Duty of the Parliamentary Election at Songtal Govt. High School, Thanion Sub-Division, Churachandpur District.
Considering all these circumstances materials on record, in my opinion it will be more appropriate to frame charge against the accused U/s 304 and 34 I.P.C. Accordingly, a charge under the above secs. Are framed against the accused. The charge is read over and explain to the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claims for trial. Fix 2/11/09 for hearing.
C.B.I. is to produce P.W. on the next date without fall."
Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 19
26. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the conclusion drawn by the learned Sessions Judge for framing charge against the petitioner and Vungdam Ngaite is absolutely based on the materials and the same cannot be faulted. Moreover, after read over the charge, the petitioners themselves claimed for trial. When the petitioners claimed for trial in respect of the charge framed against them, they cannot now turn and challenge the order of the learned Sessions Judge by way of revision.
27. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"12. Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vests the Court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well founded error and it may not be appropriate for the Court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 20 the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits."
28. In the case on hand, the learned Sessions Judge satisfied that an offence is disclosed and such a funding arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge is in accordance with the materials produced before him. Therefore, this Court is of the view that such satisfaction arrived at by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted by exercising jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the case would not be a sufficient ground for interference In such cases.
29. Now coming to the factual aspects of the matter, when the deceased was also party to the election duty along with the petitioners/accused and when the deceased sustained injuries during the course of the alleged fight/scuffle and due to injuries when the deceased was lying with bleeding injuries, the petitioners have not shown humanitarian help to save the life of the a deceased. The said act of the petitioners would clearly establishes that despite having chance for saving the life of the deceased, the petitioners have wantonly failed to do help the deceased. Considering the materials on record, the learned Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 21 Judge framed charge against the petitioners under Section 304 and 34 IPC, which in my considered view is in accordance with the law and therefore the petitioners have to face the trial of ST. Case No.1 of 2009. Moreover, quashing the proceedings of ST. Case No.1 of 2009 is nothing but derailment in bringing justice to the soul of the deceased whose life had been cruelly snatched away during his crucial age and to his long suffering poor family members.
30. It is to be mentioned that pending revision, the third petitioner Seikhojang died on 7.5.2018 and the death certificate has been produced by the son of the third petitioner. The said fact has not been disputed by the respondent CBI. Thus, the contesting parties of the instant case is only the petitioners 1 and 2.
31. In the light of the above discussion, this Court Is of the view that it cannot be concluded that framing of charge against the petitioners 1 and 2 and Selkhojang and Vungdam Ngaihte by the learned Sessions Judge is either bad in law or abuse of process of law or without any material.
32. In the result, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. Inasmuch as the trial relates to the incident of the year 1989, this Court directs the trial Judge to take sincere efforts for completion of the case as early as possible probably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 22 this order for which the prosecution and the accused must render all assistance. Keeping in view the age of the contesting petitioners 1 and 2, this Court directs that the petitioners 1 and 2 shall stand exempted from personal appearance before the trial Court except when the trial Court considers It necessary to direct their presence. The petitioners 1 and 2 shall, however, make sure that they are duly represented by a counsel on all dates of hearing and that they cooperate with the progress of the case, failing which the trial Court shall be free to direct their personal appearance. No costs.
JUDGE FR/NFR Sushil Digitally WAIKH signed WAIKHOM by OM TONEN MEITEI TONEN Date:
2020.02.24 MEITEI 15:11:57 +05'30' Crl. Rev. Petn. No. 8 of 2009 Page 23