NIA makes second consecutive arrest in 2024 Jiribam killings case
The accused has been identified as Lalrosang Hmar aka Rosang, of Moinathol village in Assam's Dilkhosh Grant Cachar. He was arrested in Aizawl, Mizoram, on Thursday. The arrest came hours after another key accused named Thanglienlal Hmar was held by a joint team of the NIA and the Assam police in Aizawl.
'Three women and three children were abducted and brutally murdered by militants in Borebekra area of Jiribam District of Manipur on November 11 last year. The bodies were disposed of in the Barak River. Like Thanglienlal, Lalrosang was also an active conspirator in the heinous crime. The NIA has recovered from him a mobile phone, along with a SIM card, and is examining the same as part of its continuing investigation in the case,' it said.
On Friday, the Indigenous Tribes Advocacy Committee (ITAC), a body constituted by All Tribal Civil Society Organisations in Pherzawl and Jiribam districts, issued a statement expressing concern and condemning what it termed 'the arbitrary arrest of two Hmar civilians.
'This arrest, much like the arbitrary detention of other Kuki-Zomi-Hmar tribals, is yet another stark illustration of selective prosecution and targeted harassment of Hmar tribal innocent civilians under the guise of national investigation. It further exposes the deeply entrenched bias within the central agencies and the judicial mechanisms...that seem to be operating with impunity and clear partiality in favour of the dominant Meitei community amidst the ongoing ethnic conflict in Manipur,' it alleged.
Earlier this week, the NIA submitted two reports in sealed covers to the Manipur High Court on the progress it has made in the probe into the abduction and death of six women and children of the Meitei community. Taking the reports on record, the court asked the agency to file a chargesheet within a month.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Deccan Herald
an hour ago
- Deccan Herald
15 militants held, 69 weapons, 16 IEDs recovered in a week in Manipur
A defence spokesperson based at Kohima in Nagaland on Monday evening said the operations were carried out in Meitei-dominated Bishnupur, Thoubal, Imphal East and Imphal West and in Kuki-dominated Churachandpur district.
India.com
2 hours ago
- India.com
Malegaon Blast: Maharashtra Must Challenge Acquittal Verdict, Says Congress MLA Arif Masood
New Delhi: Congress MLA from Madhya Pradesh, Arif Masood, urged the Maharashtra government to file an appeal against the acquittal of all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit. Masood emphasized that terrorism has no religion and should not be associated with any faith. He cited the state government's recent decision to challenge the Bombay High Court's acquittal of 12 accused in the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts case, stating that similar action should be taken in the Malegaon case. "Terrorism has no religion, nor is it related to any Maharashtra government, which has announced that it would file an appeal against the acquittal of the 12 accused in the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts case by the Bombay High Court, should do the same thing in the Malegaon case too," said Arif Masood. Meanwhile, families of the Malegaon blast victims have expressed their intent to challenge the verdict of the special NIA court, which acquitted all the accused on July 31. Their lawyer, Shahid Nadeem, confirmed that some of the families will independently file appeals. He also criticized the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for not taking action against witnesses who turned hostile during the trial. The Maharashtra government had earlier approached the Supreme Court to challenge the Bombay High Court's acquittal in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. In the Malegaon investigation, after the NIA took over from the ATS, it dropped charges under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), citing issues with how the provisions were applied. The 2008 Malegaon blast occurred on September 29 in the Nashik district, killing six people and injuring over 100. In its judgment, the special court not only acquitted all seven accused but also directed the government to pay compensation, Rs 2 lakh to the families of those killed and Rs 50,000 to the injured. The court found insufficient evidence to prove that Pragya Thakur owned the motorcycle allegedly used in the blast, noting that its chassis number had been erased. It also observed that Thakur had renounced worldly possessions two years before the incident.
The Wire
14 hours ago
- The Wire
Malegaon Terror Blast Judgment: How the Crucial Witnesses Prosecution Dropped Impacted the Case
Government Sukanya Shantha Just as the prosecution's reasons for suppressing certain key witnesses are unclear, it is equally unclear why the court did not exercise its authority to summon these witnesses. Mumbai: Since the trial for the 2008 Malegaon terror blast commenced in 2018, the prosecution examined 323 witnesses over a span of seven years. In the process, it dropped several witnesses, without providing any explanation as to why. The special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court felt that these witnesses had been 'crucial' in establishing the chain of events. The decision to drop these witnesses, said special NIA judge A.K. Lahoti, gave the scope to draw an 'adverse inference' against the prosecution. The 1036-page judgement was made available on August 1, a day after the court acquitted all seven accused – including BJP leader and formed member of parliament Pragya Singh Thakur and serving Army officer Prasad Purohit. In it, the court has raised questions about the prosecution's intention to drop several crucial witnesses who the court observed would have helped connect the missing dots in the case. Besides Thakur and Purohit, five other persons – Major Ramesh Upadhyay (retired), Ajay Rahirkar, Sameer Kulkarni, Sudhakar Chaturvedi were also acquitted by the NIA court on July 31. The acquittal, the court has observed, was an outcome of the prosecution's failure to bring sufficient evidence. Even with 'grave suspicion', the court was not able to punish the accused persons, as 'mere suspicion is not enough', the court observed. According to the Anti-Terrorism Squad's case, which was later taken up by the NIA, Purohit has allegedly founded an organisation 'Abhinav Bharat' in 2006 and had attempted to establish a 'Hindu rashtra [nation]' which would have its own constitution, flag and 'government in exile' to be run from either Israel or Thailand. As a part of this agenda, the accused persons had come together and carried out the terror blast in Malegaon. Special public prosecutor Avinash Rasal took over the case soon after the earlier special public prosecutor Rohini Salian made a dramatic exit from the case in 2015 claiming that she was given instructions to 'go soft' on the accused persons charged in the case. She had claimed that she had received the instructions from 'higher ups'. Since Salian's exit, Rasal has been involved in the case for close to a decade. Among the many witnesses that the prosecution decided to drop are those who could have helped establish the movement of the alleged bombers days before the blast occurred. Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange One of the witnesses that the prosecution decided to drop without any cogent explanation is the person whose user ID and phone number was used to book tickets. According to the ATS's case, which was later taken over by the NIA which eventually filed a chargesheet in 2016, one witness named Vilok Sharma had used his account and his phone number to book the train tickets for two absconding accused persons, Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, to travel from Pune to Indore. The two, according to both the ATS and the NIA, were accused of planting the bombs. Another person, Praveen Takkalki alias Pravin Mutalik, who the ATS had earlier accused of participating in the blast along with the two absconding accused was eventually discharged from the case after the NIA did not find any evidence against him in 2017. The judgment, narrating the NIA's case, points to Sharma's role in getting the tickets booked under fake names – Balwant Pathak and Mansingh – instead of their real names Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange. Their travel to Pune, where the RDX explosive was allegedly procured from Purohit and then to Indore where the absconding accused had allegedly assembled, planted, fitted the explosive on the LML Freedom motorcycle, were fundamental to the investigation. Also read: Malegaon Blast Trial: 1,087 Hearings, Inexplicable Orders and Victims Who Refused to Relent The court said although the facts of the case create 'grave suspicion' against the accused, mere suspicion was not enough to convict them. The court finally had to give the 'benefit of the doubt' and acquit the seven persons facing trial in the case. The travel to Pune and Indore was crucial not just to establish the movement of the absconding accused but also their otherwise loosely hanging links with army officer Purohit, who now stands acquitted in the case. 'Thus, Vilok Sharma from the aforesaid point of view was a material witness who could narrate about ticket details, booking details and traveling history. But, the prosecution has not examined Vilok Sharma. The prosecution has dropped the said witness... Therefore, in the absence of any evidence on this point, it cannot be said that, from his account the railway tickets were booked in the name of two fake persons and those were actually booked by AA-1 (Kalsangra) and AA-2 (Dange).' It is not just Sharma's statement but also the fact that an absolutely essential certificate, to be procured under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act, was not produced before the court. Without this certificate, electronic evidence is not admissible. The prosecution's case was that Kalsangra and Dange were in Pune around the same time as when Purohit had allegedly procured the RDX, i.e. August 8 to August 11. These finer details of the conspiracy and procurement of the explosive needed step-by-step building up of the evidence. The prosecution, according to the NIA judge, had dropped that. Sharma was dropped from the list of witnesses even though his name cropped up in the examination of other witnesses, especially a senior railway executive and an ATS officer. The judgement says: 'Thus, only Vilok Sharma was the witness who could say about the booking of the aforesaid ticket. The material witness Vilok Sharma is not examined by the prosecution. Non examination of material witness without any explanation give rise to draw the adverse inference against prosecution.' Another witness Pramod Deshmukh, who according to the investigating agency had seen Kalsangra and Dange had seen them in Pune around August 8 and 11, was an 'eye witness' but dropped by the witness. Another important witness, the court points out, was the policeman who diffused the detonator but was not examined as a witness. Judge Lahoti writes: 'Officer API Sachin Gawade who has actually diffused the detonator as per the case of prosecution is not examined as witness. He was the only person who could narrate the exact condition of the detonator, the procedure carried out by him for diffusing the detonator and collection of remnants after diffusing. The non-examination of material witnesses give rise to adverse inference." 'Missing' In 2016, the NIA had informed the court that around 13 witness statements, recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before a magistrate, had gone missing. The central agency had attributed this sudden and suspicious disappearance of documents to their constant ferrying between the trial and the higher courts. While the original copies of these statements had gone missing, the NIA had sought permission before the NIA court to use the photocopies of the document – which the court had granted. This permission was challenged by one of the accused persons in the Bombay high court, which later stayed the trial court's order and had directed the NIA to file a fresh application authenticating that the photocopies were indeed a replica of the original. Interestingly, the NIA did not file that application, and the witnesses were examined solely on whether their testimonies were recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. In the absence of these Section 164 statements, the magistrate who recorded them should have been examined. However, the prosecution decided against it. The judgment notes, 'The aforesaid statements (recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.) were neither presented to the witnesses nor was the concerned magistrate examined in such circumstances.' These 13 statements were crucial for proving the conspiracy meetings, the movements of the alleged bombers, and other key aspects of the case. At least two of these witnesses were essential to prove the conspiracy meetings where conversations purportedly on revenge on Muslims were discussed. While it is incumbent upon the prosecution to present important witnesses in court, when the prosecution fails to do so, the court could have done it. Section 311 of the CrPC empowers the court to summon witnesses it deems essential for the case. Just as the prosecution's reasons for suppressing certain key witnesses are unclear, it is equally unclear why the court did not exercise its authority to summon these witnesses. The prosecution examined a total of 323 witnesses in the case, of whom 39 turned hostile. However, public prosecutor Rasal did not initiate perjury proceedings against them, and nor did the court make any significant observations regarding the witnesses who refused to adhere to their original statements. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
