Imphal, September 27: The Assam Rifles has refuted the report which appeared on the Sept 27 issue of this paper under the caption, "Which direction is Manorama's case headed ?" Refuting the report, the Press Spokesman of the Assam Rifles in a statement said, "Consequent to the forensic report indicating detection of the said stains on the petticoat of late Th Manorama, the army authorities immediately ordered all the personnel involved in the operation to be put through a DNA test.

Accordingly their blood samples were taken at RIMS as per laid down procedures, sealed and forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Kolkata for DNA profiling and comparison.

The Forensic Laboratory authorities on their part requested for the sanction of the Manipur State Government to carry out comparison as the samples taken from the petticoat belonged to the State.

The Army then made numerous attempts, including liaisons at the highest levels to obtain the sanction, with no result.

Finally, the State Govt directed the Army Authorities to approach a competent Court to obtain the sanction for comparing of samples.

These are the facts that led to the Army applying to the CJM for a direction for comparison of DNA samples.

This too ironically been rejected by the Honourable CJM".

TSE replies: Our report was clear and simple.

The argument forwarded in our news item was that the blood samples of the AR men were taken at RIMS with the police authority nowhere in the picture.

The question is, how can the Army entertain any expectations for the police to depose before its Court and produce the DNA sample of the semen found on the petticoat of Manorama when it was by passed when the blood samples of the AR men were taken? Since the AR has filed an FIR with the police, what is stopping them from being examined/questioned by the police? The State Govt did direct the Army on September 8 to approach the Court to obtain the sanction for comparing the DNA samples.

But again on Sept 9, the State Home Dept wrote to the Army to the effect that examination of the AR personnel involved in the operation was necessary.

Why is the AR keeping mum on the directive issued on September 9? The second point raised by the Assam Rifles reads, "The second issue, though intricately related is regarding the summoning of the Police Investigating Officer on the Manorama case.

A Court of Inquiry has inherent necessary powers guaranteed to it to summon any witness, be it civil or military.

Procedures are in place for summons to be issued through the CJM if deemed necessary.

It was perfectly legal for the Court of Inquiry to summon the Investigating Officer with documents".

TSE replies: Point noted.

Yes, the Army Court of Inquiry has the authority to summon civil witnesses through a civil Court.

However the Army Court cannot compel civil witnesses to appear before it.

"The third issue relates to the allegation of non-cooperation on the part of Assam Rifles in the investigation.

The nominal roll of all 33 personnel that took part in the operation launched to apprehend Th Manorama had been handed over to the Army Court of Inquiry and the Justice Upendra Commission of Inquiry.

The very same list has also been published and made public in the article which appeared in The Sangai Express on September 26.These not withstanding, this has also been provided to the Investigating Officer".

TSE replies: The Sangai Express did carry the names of the Assam Rifles personnel whose blood samples were collected for DNA testing, but the report nowhere said that these AR men were involved in the said operation.

The AR rebuttal has also failed to address the question of whether, the records sought by the police such as duty register/deployment records were submitted along with the list of the AR personnel.

Therefore this does not exactly confirm whether the blood samples of the AR men who actually took part in the operation were collected or not.

The AR Spokesman added, "The intention in all these efforts on the part of the Court of Inquiry is to complete the investigative processes at the earliest and finalise the case.

Ironically, the police and other investigating bodies are also engaged in the same endeavour.

The question therefore of competition or non-co-operation does not arise.

The Army has always strived for total co-operation, bonhomie, transparency with the police and State authorities".

TSE replies: We cannot answer why the Assam Rifles find the engagement of the police and other investigating bodies in the same endeavour as ironical.

It is best left to them to answer this.

The question of co-operation has arisen because of earlier instances in the not too distant past.

Remember how the High Court had to step in to make the AR men testify before the Upendra Commission, even after the top brass of the Army had assured that they would extend all co-operation to the State Govt.

Comment