Court convicts main accused in cop murder case
Source: Chronicle News Service

Imphal, April 08 2022: District and Sessions Judge, Imphal West on Friday convicted one Sukham Phunil (66) of Singjamei Chingamakha Oinam Leirak, who was accused of killing the then Narcotics Cell Imphal West sub-inspector K Ashwini Kumar, while the latter was on duty at Singjamei Chingamakhong on September 9, 2002.During the hearing of the case, the prosecution submitted that acting on reliable information that a Moreh bound bus (MN01 0887) was transporting small arms and drugs for the purpose of supplying to insurgents, a team of Narcotics Cell consisting of SI K Ashwini Kumar Singh, ASI Budha Singh and 4 other constables waited for the bus at Singjamei Chingamakhong on September 9, 2002 around 5.45 pm.

The bus was stopped just near Singjamei Supermarket along NH-39 and SI Ashwini Kumar Singh boarded the bus to talk with the driver, when he was suddenly stabbed on his stomach with a pointed weapon.

The complainant, M Kumar Singh was also stabbed, while trying to intervene and sustained injuries on the right side of his neck.

The injured victims were rushed to the RIMS hospital wherein Ashwini succumbed to injuries, while ASI M Kumar Singh was discharged later the same day after receiving necessary treatment.

Hence, the complainant filed this case for necessary action.

In connection with the incident, Singjamei PS registered a case and conducted an investigation.

During the course of investigation, accused Sukham Phunil Singh (66) s/o (L) S Anganghal Singh of Singjamei Chingamakha Oinam Leirak was arrested on November 13, 2002 .

He was produced before Additional CJM Imphal, which then remanded him to 8 days in police custody.

Police also recovered the knife used in committing the crime.

After listening to the arguments of both sides, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused under Section 302 of IPC.

However, the accused has been found guilty under Section 326 (causing grievous injury) of IPC.

Although no evidence was provided to support the charge levelled under Section 326 of IPC, the prosecution provided exact evidence supporting the charge levelled against the accused under Section 324 (causing simple hurt by dangerous weapon) of IPC.

Thus, the Court convicted Sukham Phunil Singh under Section 326 read with Section 222 of CrPC for the first charge and under Section 324 read with Section 222 of CrPC for the second charge.

Later, the Court announced the quantum of sentence on Friday itself, as prayed by the counsel of the convict.

During the sentence hearing, the PP prayed for maximum punishment to be awarded to the accused so as to set an example to the society that the Court does not take lightly those convicted of attacking policemen on duty, while remarking that he (Phunil) has been shown enough leniency by the Court.

Meanwhile, the counsel of the convict submitted to the Court that the convict, who is on bail, is now a senior citizen and physically disabled after suffering a stroke.

He is economically broke and is defended by a legal aid counsel appointed by this Court and has no family other than his wife.

He then made a prayer to the court for minimum possible punishment and at most up to the period already undergone during trial, while also requesting that the convict may be absolved from fine provisions.

After listening to the submissions, the Court sentenced the convict to simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 326 IPC and another period of 6 months for the offence under Section 324 of IPC.

The two sentences shall run concurrently under the provisions of Section 31 of CrPC.

However, as the convict has undergone imprisonment for a period of 569 days in all during the trials, the period of punishments shall be set off under the provisions of Section 428 of CrPC.

As the convict has undergone longer period than the imprisonment period awarded, he shall not be taken into custody in connection with the present case.

The convict is on bail and his bail bonds are discharged.

The Court then ordered for the material exhibits to be disposed of after expiry of the period of limitation for filing appeal.

Comment