Ambiguous Gobardhan blames his loss of memory for details
Source: Hueiyen News Service
New Delhi, March 15 2013 :
On the third day of the inquiry being conducted by the Supreme Court appointed three-member independent Inquiry Commission headed by former Supreme Court Justice N Santosh Hegde at Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi today, respondent witness Moirangthem Gobardhan Singh, a State Police Commando, was questioned by Supreme Court lawyer Colin Gonsalvez on behalf of the Petitioners.
Gobardhan was questioned about the exact details of the encounter in connection with case no.6 related to death of Akoijam Priyobarta during an alleged shoot-out at Iroisemba under Imphal West district on March 15, 2009 .
In response to the questions raised by Petitioners' counsel Colin Gonsalvez, Gobardhan informed that three teams, one by led by him and another two by 'Mike 54' and 'Mike 56', went to the spot of the encounter after receiving information from a person claiming to be from the 16th Assam Rifles, that certain members of the banned KCP outfit were present at Iroisemba.
On reaching near Iroisemba, they frisked some people but he does not remember how much amount of time elapsed before the frisking and the starting of the firing.
Gobardhan insisted that the area was dark and he could not see properly.
But he assumes that there were two or three persons present.
He also said he could not identify any weapons on the suspect as it was dark.
When he shouted at them to stop, the suspects apparently stepped a few steps back.
Upon shouting to stop again, the suspects opened fired on the commandos, to which the commandos retaliated.
After the firing, Gobardhan said, he called the Investigating Officer (IO) but before the IO arrived, he (Gobardhan) checked the pistol allegedly found on the body of the suspect and recovered a live round in the pistol chamber and four spent cartridges.
Gobardhan went on to inform that he used a cloth to pack the pistol found on the suspect after checking the left over rounds, and then he prepared a Seizure Memo and took the pistol to the police station.
But he insisted that he did not disturb the crime scene.
Then he arrived back on the scene with the IO.
However, he claimed that he does not know whether the IO performed any inquest but said that the IO conducted some 'formality'.
He and the IO alone handled the weapon that was allegedly recovered from the body of the suspect.
In many instances, Gobardhan blamed on his loss of memory as the incident happened four years back.
He used this excuse to the ambiguity in recalling the exact details of the shoot-out.
The most glaring piece of information that surfaced in the questioning was that the respondent witness Gobardhan did not know the identity of the dead suspect until the report of the encounter was published in the newspaper the following.
He did not know the identity of the suspect when they fired back in retaliation and he did not know the identity after he saw the dead body.
He also said he did not search the body for verifying the identity of the dead suspect right after the encounter.
In response to the cross examination by the Counsel for the Inquiry Commission, Gobardhan said he did not verify the information, as he believed it was true but it was discussed with the officer.
But he did not see the fallen body.
He further replied that when he got the information at that time he was at the commando head quarter.
He met the other two commando team 'Mike 54' and 'Mike 56' at Iroiremba.
When Gobardhan was asked whether he informed the other team members, he replied that he did informed 'Mike 56' but he did not inform 'Mike 54' .
He was further asked who led the other two teams and he told the names of the officers who led the two teams but admitted that they did not recover any motorcycle from the crime scene.