POSTSANGBAM NINGOL THOKCHOM Vs. GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING
LAWS(SC)-1997-9-146
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GAUHATI)
Decided on September 16,1997

POSTSANGBAM NINGOL THOKCHOM Appellant
VERSUS
GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SHAKUNTALA VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-176] [REFERRED TO]
KIRON DEVI SMTI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2000-1-26] [REFERRED TO]
MAHMUD ALI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2001-12-29] [REFERRED TO]
ACHANG PONG VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2002-9-54] [REFERRED TO]
HESAMUDDIN ALIAS IBOYAIMA VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2006-12-26] [REFERRED TO]
KIRON DEVI (SMTI) VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2000-1-39] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. OFFICIL LIQUIDATOR OF COMMERCIAL AHMEDABAD MIL LS CO [LAWS(GJH)-2008-9-148] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S. P. Bharucha, J. - (1.)The appellants are the mothers of Thokchom Lokendra Singh and Kangujam Loken Singh respectively. The said boys, each about 20 years old, along with a third, Kangujam Iboyaima Singh, were picked up by the Army in Imphal on Sept. 23, 1980. On Sept. 26, 1980, Kangujam Iboyaima Singh was released, but the said boys were not. On April 9, 1981, the appellants filed habeas corpus writ petitions before the Gauhati High Court. The writ petitions were dismissed by a learned single Judge on the strength of the averment of the respondents that the said boys had left their custody. Appeals were filed before a Division Bench of the High Court, which also, ultimately, came to be dismissed in view of the respondents statement.
(2.)Special leave to appeal against the orders of the Division Bench was granted. The respondents reiterated in this Court the stand that the said boys had been released after interrogation, but without having been first handed over to the police. On April 24, 1990, this Court directed the District Judge, Imphal (West), to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances relating to the disappearance of the said boys. The District Judge was directed to permit the concerned parties to adduce evidence, documentary and oral, and to cross-examine the witnesses of the other side. He was also directed to record the statement of the third boy, Kangujam Iboyaima Singh, who had been released.
(3.)The District Judge submitted a detailed report on Oct. 6, 1990. His conclusion was that there was no cogent evidence to show that the said boys had been released. He, therefore, found that they had not yet been released from the custody of the first and second respondents.


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