Alleged fake encounter killing of W Jayenta : State Govt denies prosecution sanction
Source: The Sangai Express

Imphal, December 09 2022: The State Government has refused to grant prosecution sanction against any of the police personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter killing of Wahengbam Jayenta in 2012 .

The Government refused to grant prosecution against 10 State police personnel citing 'no sufficient reason' .

It may be noted that Wahengbam Jayenta was allegedly shot dead by a combined team of Imphal West Commandos and personnel of Assam Rifles on February 6, 2012 near Don Bosco, Phayeng.

Notably, the victim's family and the EEVFAM (Extrajudicial Execution Victim Families' Association, Manipur), as petitioners, filed a protest petition with a prayer for rejecting a closure report submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the case in November last year.

Alleged fake encounter killing of W Jayenta

The petition was filed praying for further investigation into the case by rejecting the closure report of the CBI and for taking cognizance of the offence leveled against the accused personnel.

Notably, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West on November 23 last year, had rejected the final/closure report.

The Court had then taken cognizance of offences under Section 302/34 IPC and directed the CBI to initiate proceedings for taking prosecution sanction against 10 State police personnel and 6 personnel of the Assam Rifles.

Responding to a letter inviting comments/views of the State police in connection with a CBI proposal for prosecution sanction against 10 State security personnel, the Joint Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur stated that there is no sufficient reason to grant prosecution sanction against any of the security personnel.

The letter to the CBI, signed by the Joint Secretary (Home) dated June 9, 2022, mentioned that the final report submitted by the CBI pointed out that there was no evidence to come to the conclusion that the deceased was killed by the security personnel in a fake encounter.

Also, there was no evidence to show that the deceased was picked up by the security personnel and killed in the place of occurrence of the case.

As per the closure report of the CBI submitted in the Court, W Jayenta was in fact killed in an encounter with the security personnel on the night of February 6, 2012.And, also no substantial evidence/material has been added and the finding of the exhaustive enquiry or the investigation of CBI in the case remains as it was submitted earlier to the Court, said the letter.

The letter of the Joint Secretary (Home) also mentions that the prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC is to be granted only when there is sufficient material to prosecute a public servant who committed an offence while discharging his official duties.

As submitted by the CBI, there is no such evidence in the present case and from the detailed facts and circumstance of the case put forward by the CBI, there is no sufficient reason for granting prosecution sanction against any of the State security personnel.

It may be noted here that, on perusal of the CBI closure report, the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Imphal West, on November 23 last year, had observed that the possibility of manipulation of material evidence cannot be ruled out in the case and stated that the responsible person/officer should be made accountable and liability be fixed for destruction of important evidence.

The Court had further observed that the mere excuse that a gold ring worn by the deceased was misplaced in the process of shifting to the police station was 'not good enough'.

Observing that the investigation of the case appeared to be "incomplete", the Court had stated that, "It seems that there was no exchange of fire from both sides; rather, as facts indicate, there was one-sided action from the side of security personnel." The Court had then rejected the final report and directed the CBI for further investigation into the missing links/points and gave liberty to the investigation agency to explore all possibilities for finding the truth of the case and submit a subsequent report before filing the final charge sheet or before committal of the case to a higher Court.