June 18, 2001 killings: CJM rejects closure report
Source: The Sangai Express

Imphal, October 28 2025: The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West Sorokhaibam Sadananda today rejected the closure report submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and took cognizance of offence under sections 302 and 34 IPC against the 17 personnel of 81 Battalion CRPF and 121 Battalion CRPF in connection with the killing of 14 individuals by CRPF personnel deployed at the Chief Minister's Bungalow who allegedly stormed the bungalow after a violent protest erupted on June 18, 2001 in Imphal against the extension of ceasefire between Government of India and NSCN (IM) without territorial limits.

The order was passed after hearing the closure report and a protest petition filed by the victim families before the Court through their counsel.

June 18, 2001 killings: CJM rejects closure report

Following a direction issued by the Supreme Court of India in connection with writ petition filed by EEVFAM against the Union of India on January 16, 2018, CBI had registered a case on December 5, 2018 for investigation.

Earlier, the Supreme court had also observed that the independent commission of enquiry had made adverse comments against Manipur Police and CRPF personnel for using excessive force or retaliatory force, in relation to the 32 deaths enquired upon (including 11 deaths on June 18, 2001).After investigation, the CBI submitted the final/clo-sure report on August 17, 2020 for want of evidence.

After the receipt of the closure report, a criminal miscellaneous case was registered in the Court on October 1, 2020 while the protest petition was filed before the Court on November 27 by the victim families of the case.

In their closure report, CBI said that it took up the investigation over two FIRs which were registered in connection with the death of 14 persons on June 18, 2001 .

The first FIR was registered by City police station in connection with the firing incident at the southern gate of Raj Bhavan and the other FIR was registered at Imphal police station for the firing incident at the Chief Minister's Bungalow.

The CBI report mentioned that information was received by 81 Battalion CRPF that an unruly mob had gathered in front of the Raj Bhavan protesting the ceasefire agreement signed between GoI and NSCN(IM) without territorial limits, violating the prohibitory order imposed by District Magistrate, Imphal West.

As lawful order was refused to be complied with, the Executive Magistrate on the spot issued an order to disperse the mob through the CRPF personnel stationed there.

Accordingly CRPF personnel dispersed the mob by firing at around 1.35 pm.

Three persons - Amom Rajen, Yumnam Rishikanta and Khoisnam Singhajit, died on the spot and 10 others sustained gunshot injuries in the firing.

The CBI report said that at around 2 pm on June 18, 2001, a mob attacked the Chief Minister's Bungalow, broke gate number 1 and started burning the Chief Minister's residential office, CM's guest house and damaged CRPF barracks and company office.

Then the mob overpowered the then Deputy Commandant of 121 Battalion CRPF and snatched his 9 mm pistol and tried to snatch an LMG after which CRPF personnel fired from their LMG, SLR and AK -47 rifles killing three persons on the spot and injuring another.

Investigation revealed that 12 personnel of 81 Battalion and three personnel of 121 Battalion CRPF fired their weapons on June 18, 2001 at Raj Bhavan and the CM Bungalow respectively.

Based on the investigation, the Investigating Officer then gave his opinion that as curfew order was in force and requisition was received, the CRPF personnel were justified in opening fire to disperse the raging mob in self defence and for the protection of the Raj Bhavan, the Chief Minister's Bungalow and the occupants therein.

The IO further gave his opinion that even in the absence of the (curfew) order, the CO of 81 Battalion and the two Deputy Commandants, being gazetted officers themselves can resort to section 131 CrPC for dispersal of unlawful assembly.

The IO opined that it cannot be concluded beyond reasonable doubt that CRPF personnel had fired on the crowd, even after the crowd had run away or the firing by the CRPF personnel was more than required to meet the exigencies of the situation.

Saying that it could not be concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the CRPF personnel were guilty, the IO submitted the closure report.

On the other hand, a protest petition filed by the family members of the 14 deceased persons and EEVFAM, alleged that the finding of Upendra Enquiry Commission has been negated by the IO of the CBI and further stated that after the firing by the CRPF and the subsequent death of the 14 persons had been established and the IO erred in submitting the closure report citing want of evidence, prayed that the closure report be rejected.

The Court, after hearing the submissions of Special PP CBI, counsels of victim families and on perusal of the CBI's closure report and the protest petition of the victim families, observed that IO of the case had not bothered to identify the dead bodies which were recovered from inside the premises of CM Bungalow and referred to the Upendra Commission report wherein it mentioned names of three persons - Gurumayum Dutta, Kh Romeo and Thoudam Guneshwor who died instantaneously near the inner VIP gate, and two others - Bachaspatimayum Atang Sharma and Mayanglambam Manikanta who died later at hospital after they were shot inside the compound but the exact locations of the recovery of remaining six other dead bodies were not ascertained.

The Court also observed that the Deputy Commandant of 121 Battalion was in charge of the overall security of the CM Bungalow.

They were on static duty, not deployed there nor requisitioned.

It was seen that it was the Deputy Commandant who gave the order to open fire, not the Magistrate.

Although it was claimed that the deliberate firing was an act of self defence, the same claim was apparently contradicted by the recovery of six other dead bodies and the testimonies of those injured who got hit outside the CM bungalow while running away, the Court observed.

The Court also observed that security personnel cannot take protection under section 132 CrPC as there are sufficient materials to suggest that they exceeded their lawful powers and caused indiscriminate firing which resulted in the death of 11 persons and injuring others.

The Court then rejected the closure report submitted under section 173 CrPC and took cognizance of offence under section 302/ 34 IPC against 17 CRPF personnel of 81 Battalion CRPF and 121 Battalion CRPF.

Closure at the present stage is pre-mature and the material on record, if untested, would subvert justice, said the Court's order.

Registering a Cril P case, the Court issued summons to the accused personnel of 81 Battalion CRPF and 121 Battalion CRPF to appear on November 25 for furnishing of relevant papers and committal proceedings.