STATE Vs. NONGMAITHEM TOMCHOU SINGH
LAWS(GAU)-1966-2-1
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on February 16,1966

STATE Appellant
VERSUS
Nongmaithem Tomchou Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

C.JAGANNADHACHARYULU J. - (1.) THIS is a petition filed by the Government of Manipur under Section 489, Criminal Procedure Code to revise the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur, in Original Revision Case No. 50/64/35/65 dated 16.2.1966, refuging to set aside the order of discharge of the respondents passed by the S. D. O., Thoubal under Section 207A (b), Criminal Procedure Code in C. R. Case No. 159 of 196b dated 20.7.1964.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 5.11.1963 at about 4 -00 p. m. one Kumari Nongmaithem Manisang Devi was returning home with her girl friends, namely, N. Sorojini Devi, N. Mani Devi, Y. Sanabanbi Devi, M. Purnima Devi and Kh. Thambalyaima Devi from Kakching Girls' High School, that when they reached the gate of one Naorem Kanhai Singh of Kakching Chuthek Hingthon, the respondents suddenly emerged from a truck No. MNS 5102, which was parked there and they forcibly lifted Manisang Devi into the truck to compel her to marry the first respondent N. Tomohou Singh against her will. Though, she raised alarm for rescue, the truck was driven towards Pallal side. The companions of Manisang Devi reported the occurrence to the family of the girl. Immediately thereupon, Nongmaithem Iboyaima Singh, elder brother of the girl, made a vigorous search along with others for her till about 11.00 a. m. of 6 -11 -63. They found the truck and its driver, namely, the second respondent, Naorem Shamu Singh behind Pallal village. He made an extra -judicial -confession before the search party. The search party brought him with the truck and handed him with the truck to the Pallal Outpost at about 5.50 p. m. on 6 -11 -65. A written complaint was given by the girl's brother Nongmaithem Iboyaima Singh. The Outpost Police Station forwarded the arrested accused to the Thoubal Police Station, as it had no jurisdiction to register the case. The Officer -in -charge of Thoubal Police Station registered a case under Section 366, I. P.C. and sent F. I. R. to the Officer -in -charge, Pallal Outpost for investigation. The latter recovered the girl and examined the 6 eye -witnesses to the actual occurrence. He also examined one inhabitant near the place of occurrence and 3 witnesses including the complainant before whom extra -judicial confession was made by the second respondent. After completing the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the respondents under Section 366, I. P.C.
(3.) THE S. D. M., Thoubal, held enquiry under Section 207A, Criminal Procedure Code But, he examined only 2 witnesses, namely, N. Manisang Devi and N. Sorojini Devi as P. Ws. 1 and 2, out of the six eye -witnesses. He examined the respondents with reference to their evidence only. The first respondent pleaded that the girl was in love with him and produced Exts. B/3 to B/3, letters written by her to him and pleaded that she eloped with him willingly. The other respondents denied having taken part in the occurrence. The S. D. M. examined the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 (N. Manisang Devi and N. Sorojini Devi) and Exts. B/1 to B/3 and held that the first respondent eloped with the girl with her consent but that she subsequently changed her mind due to the influence of her parents. He, therefore, discharged all the respondents under Section 207A (6), Criminal Procedure Code The petitioner herein filed Criminal Revision Case No. 50/64/35/65 on the file of Sessions Court, Manipur, to revise the order of discharge. The revision petition was disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur. He held that the petitioner should have moved the S. D. M. to examine the other eye -witnesses and that though it was a proper case for the Sessions Judge to set aside the order of discharge and to direct the S. D. M. to make further enquiry by examining the other eye -witnesses, the Additional Sessions Judge thought that his hands were tied as the revision petition was filed under Section 487, Criminal Procedure Code, and not under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, under the proviso of which the Court could make the direction after giving an opportunity to the discharged person to show cause why a direction for further enquiry should not be made.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.