Manipur HC directs NIA to file charge sheet in Jiribam killings case in one month
A division bench comprising Chief Justice K Somasekhar and Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh gave the direction while hearing a PIL on Thursday.
"Subsequent to recording of the FIR, law was set into motion but till today, no specific report has been submitted for filing of charge sheet against culprits/accused," the HC said.
It noted that the counsel for the Centre has informed "that investigation has been carried out by the investigating agency and even it is in the process of completion of the investigation and filing of charge sheet against the culprits/accused."
The Centre's counsel placed before the court two sets of sealed covered envelopes, containing a detailed progress report on the investigation, the order noted, "The two sealed covered envelopes said to contain the detailed progress report are taken on record."
"Keeping in view the status in this matter, one month's time is granted for submitting the detailed report in terms of charge sheet under Section 173 of CrPC and corresponding provision of BNSS Act, 2023," the HC said.
"It is made clear that if there is no progress made, the matter would be viewed seriously," it added.
The matter was listed for the next hearing on August 28.
The HC had on July 9 directed the NIA to submit a detailed progress report in the case.
Three women and three children, including a 10-month-old, were abducted on November 11 during an attack at a security camp in the Borobekra area of Jiribam district.
Two civilians were also killed in the attack.
The bullet-riddled bodies of the six persons were recovered from the Barak river along the Manipur-Assam border on November 15.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Warangal doctor told to move magistrate over dowry, harassment probe against ‘gay' husband
Hyderabad: The Telangana high court has advised a woman doctor from Warangal, who claimed her husband of being gay and harassing her for more dowry, to take her grievances about the police investigation to the jurisdictional magistrate. The doctor had approached the court seeking directions to speed up the probe in a case filed at Hanamkonda police station against her husband and his family members under various sections of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. She alleged that the police were biased in favour of her husband and that a weak investigation would lead to his acquittal during trial. However, after examining the available evidence, the high court said it could not interfere in the manner of investigation or direct the police on how to conduct it. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court clarified that as the complainant in the case, she has the right to present her grievances before the magistrate under relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and request further investigation if necessary. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad According to her complaint, she was married to a doctor based in Chennai, in Sept 2023. She alleged that her husband concealed his sexual orientation before marriage and accepted dowry in the form of Rs 1.5 crore in cash, a luxury car worth Rs 93 lakh, 4.3 acres of land, and a residential flat. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Become Fluent in Any Language Talkpal AI Undo After marriage, the woman claimed her husband avoided physical intimacy, and upon checking his devices, she found intimate photos with other men and gay dating apps. When she confronted him, he allegedly retaliated by circulating morphed images of her, damaging her reputation. The woman told the court that the police had filed the chargesheet relying only on her husband's confessional statement and failed to gather supporting evidence. However, the high court observed that the police did record statements from six witnesses, collected WhatsApp chats, medical records related to her and the accused, mental health treatment details, and photographs from his iPad, together forming a 54-page evidence. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and s ilver prices in your area.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Supreme Court relists case where it took judge off criminal cases after 13 Allahabad HC judges protest
Following an unprecedented protest by several judges of the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court on Friday will rehear the matter in which it had barred a judge of the Allahabad High Court from hearing criminal cases till his retirement. At least 13 judges of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday sought a full court reference to discuss the SC observations and directions against their colleague, a sitting judge of the HC. It is learnt that one judge moved a letter seeking a full court discussion while 12 of his colleagues signed it. The top court had criticised the HC judge for permitting criminal prosecution in what it said was essentially a civil dispute. The matter will be reheard by a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, which had also passed the August 4 order barring the judge. Sources said there was a view among some of the SC judges that the court could have gone easier in the matter as against the HC judge, and this was conveyed to the CJI. In its August 4 order, the SC asked the Allahabad HC Chief Justice to 'make the concerned judge sit in a division bench with a seasoned senior judge of the high court. We further direct that the concerned judge shall not be assigned any criminal determination till he demits office. If at all at some point in time, he is to be made to sit as a single judge, he shall not be assigned any criminal determination.' The case involved a dispute between a yarn supplier and a cloth manufacturer. Lalita Textile Concern had supplied thread worth Rs 52,34,385 to Shikhar Chemicals, of which Rs 47,75,000 was paid and the rest remained unpaid since August 2019. The owner of Lalita Textile alleged he did not receive payment despite multiple attempts. He moved a magistrate court, which took cognisance of the complaint, and issued summons for the offence punishable under Section 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the IPC. This was challenged before the high court, which dismissed the same. The case then came to the Supreme Court. It said in its verdict: 'With all due deference and humility at our command, we are constrained to observe that the impugned order is one of the worst and most erroneous orders that we have come across in our respective tenures as judges of this court.' The top court added, 'The judge concerned has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian judiciary at the level of high court. At times, we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable.' The SC set aside the high court order and remanded the matter to the high court for considering it afresh. The court asked the Chief Justice of the Allahabad HC to assign the matter to any other HC judge.
NDTV
3 hours ago
- NDTV
'Shields minors': Centre Defends Statutory Age Of 18 Years For Consent In Top Court
New Delhi: The Centre has defended in the Supreme Court the statutory age of consent of 18 years, saying the decision was a "deliberate, well-considered, and coherent" policy choice aimed at shielding minors from sexual exploitation. The Centre, in its written submissions through Additional Solicitor General Aishwaraya Bhati, argued diluting the age of consent or introducing exceptions under the guise of adolescent romance would be not only legally unsound but also dangerous. The government said it would provide a defence mechanism even to those abusers who exploit a child's emotional dependence or silence. The Centre further said the existing statutory age of consent must be strictly and uniformly enforced. "Any departure from this standard, even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy, would amount to rolling back decades of progress in child protection law, and undermine the deterrent character of statutes like the POCSO (the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act, 2012 and the BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).' Moreover, the Centre argued that the discretion on case-to-case basis must remain judicial and must not be read into the statute as a general exception or a diluted standard. 'Introducing a legislative close-in-age exception or reducing the age of consent would irrevocably dilute the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law. A diluted law risks opening the floodgates to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of consent,' it said. Lowering the age of consent, the Centre said, would open the "floodgates" to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of assent. The case before the top court raises the point of age in adolescent relationships. 'The legislative determination to fix the age of consent at eighteen (18) years, and to treat all sexual activities with a person below that age as an offence irrespective of purported consent, is a product of a deliberate, well-considered, and coherent statutory policy,' the Centre said. The law does not treat the age limit as arbitrary and rather, it reflects a constitutional and legislative recognition of a minor's vulnerability, especially in a socio-economic context marked by deep inequalities and power imbalances, it added. A child's inability to report or resist is exacerbated when the perpetrator is a parent or close family member, it said, adding in such cases, presenting 'consent' as a defence only victimises the child, shifts the blame onto them, and undermines the very object of POCSO to protect children from exploitation regardless of whether they were 'willing'. The existing age of consent ought to be retained in order to give full effect to the legislative intent, protect the bodily integrity of children, and uphold the constitutional and statutory safeguards accorded to them, it said. 'The Supreme Court along with high courts across the country have always maintained the sanctity of legal age of consent as 18 years of age. This statutory yardstick has been upheld on numerous occasions, keeping in view the legislative intent and the pre-eminent constitutional mandate of protecting young children,' it said. Earlier, amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising had urged the bench to read down the statutory age of consent from 18 to 16 years. Jaising, who is assisting the top court in the case, then said the current law criminalises consensual romantic relationships among adolescents and violates their constitutional rights.
