Key accused in killing of 6 Meiteis in Manipur's Jiribam arrested in Assam
The accused, identified as Thanglienlal Hmar alias Boya, a resident of Moinathol village in the district, was arrested based on specific intelligence inputs, Cachar Senior Superintendent of Police Numal Mahatta told reporters.
Hmar is accused of playing a key logistical role in the abduction and subsequent killing of the six victims—three women and three children, Mahatta said.
"He was actively involved in transporting the victims and the armed assailants to the location where the killings were executed," he said.
He had used his boat to ferry the victims along with three armed attackers, all dressed in camouflage uniforms, from Jakuradhar Ghat to Kaisalpunjee village Ghat in Jiribam district.
The NIA had been tracking Hmar's movements for several months and his arrest is considered a major development in the case.
"We are committed to ensuring that all involved in the killings are booked and we are supporting the central agency in this," Mahatta said.
Hmar is currently in NIA's custody and is being interrogated to gather more information on the network of individuals who facilitated the attack.
The victims were later found murdered, and their bodies were recovered from three different areas near the Assam-Manipur border in November last year.
The day these six persons were abducted, 10 suspected militants were killed in an encounter with security forces, and their bodies were later brought to Assam for post-mortem examination.
This incident fueled existing ethnic tensions between Meiteis and Kuki-Zo groups, which began spreading to Assam.
The Assam government had subsequently increased security arrangements along the border.
The Union Home Ministry transferred the case to the NIA in December last year, and the central agency identified several individuals for their alleged involvement in the killings.
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
The Wire
2 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.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Brinda Karat writes: Harassment of tribal youth, nuns raises urgent questions about minority rights
The arrest of two nuns, Sisters Preeti Mary and Vandana Francis, and Sukhman Mandavi, an Adivasi youth belonging to the Christian community in Chhattisgarh, has been widely reported in the media. I was part of a delegation of Members of Parliament and political leaders who met them in Durg central jail. The cases against them are of forcible conversion and human trafficking. They were released after being granted bail by an NIA court on Saturday. On July 25, three adult Adivasi women accompanied by Mandavi, their family friend, reached Durg station from their village in Orchha, Narayanpur. This was the first time they were travelling outside their district, and were understandably nervous. They were on their way to an Agra hospital to get trained as kitchen help to be employed in institutions run by the nuns. They were waiting at the railway station for two nuns who were to escort them to Agra. They had heard of the jobs through Mandavi's sister Sukhmati, who had worked at the Agra hospital for several years. Mandavi had not bought a platform ticket and was questioned by a passing inspector. This attracted attention and soon a crowd gathered, led by the local Bajrang Dal, who insisted that the group of Adivasis and the nuns, who had arrived by then, should be taken into police custody on charges of trafficking. The Adivasi women showed their Aadhaar cards, which proved that they were not minors. Their parents spoke to the police on the phone, assuring them that their daughters were travelling with their consent. They offered to make the journey from their village several hours away to make written statements to this effect. Thus, no charge of human trafficking was made out. They also stated clearly that they and their daughters had been Christians for several years. There was, therefore, no question of forcible conversion. These are the facts. But it is not facts that mattered. The police control room at the railway station became an arena for open hooliganism. There is video evidence of Bajrang Dal memebers, led by a woman, humiliating, intimidating and shouting at the nuns in filthy, sexist, abusive language. The video shows them beating Mandavi, threatening him to make him 'confess' to being part of the nuns' 'conspiracy'. The young women were taken one by one into an adjoining room and beaten and bullied into changing their statements and agreeing that they were being forcibly taken away. The police stood by while the Constitution, rule of law and the norms of human rights were shredded. Without any independent inquiry, on grounds of 'suspicion' on a complaint filed by a Bajrang Dal leader, the nuns were booked and arrested along with Mandavi. The terrorised Adivasi women were taken to a government home where they were isolated, and when their anxious parents arrived, they were not permitted to meet them. There has been tremendous pressure on the women and the parents to give statements against the nuns and the Church. The women were released after a week of what is termed 'counselling' by the government. Statements given under custodial pressure have little legal value. There are several issues that arise, apart from the utter lawlessness and targeting of Christians by Hindutva outfits backed by the BJP government. This is an attack on the constitutional right of a citizen to travel and work anywhere in the country. Does a young Adivasi woman who belongs to the Christian community have to get a passport stamped by a Sangh Parivar outfit to travel to another state? Why should adult Adivasi Christian women have to show evidence as to why and with whom they are travelling? This case establishes a terrible precedent that directly impacts the lives and livelihoods of young Adivasi women travelling out of their villages for work. A second issue is the nature of the attack on the nuns and the Adivasi women. Can anyone, man or woman, use language that amounts to verbal sexual assault against those in custody and not be prosecuted? This was also a sexist attack that concerns the rights of all women. Then again, the only time the brave Sister Preeti Mary broke down was when she narrated that she was accused by the hooligans of being a 'foreigner' and called a 'deemak' (termite) working against national interest: 'After all my years of work for the poor, for the leprosy-afflicted, in the most remote areas without any facilities, am I to be termed an anti-national termite? My religion inspires me to work for the poor — am I to be punished for that?' We have heard words like 'termites' used by the Home Minister to abuse Bengali-speaking Muslims routinely, as being 'illegal migrants'. Here, we have Christian nuns being called termites. The words we heard joined the dots between that cell in Durg jail and the bastis of Delhi and elsewhere, where Indian citizens are being harassed and tortured in the name of detecting of illegal immigrants: Anyone and everyone who does not fit into the framework of Hindutva can be termed a 'foreigner' and their rights curtailed. The deletion of lakhs of voters in Bihar — mainly the poor, Dalits and marginalised communities — in the Special Intensive Revision to 'purify' the electoral lists is also being done in the name of detection of foreigners. The number of foreigners detected is negligible, but the EC's demand for documents, impossible to procure, has basically robbed the poor of the fundamental right of every Indian to vote in an election. Join the dots of what is happening across India. The horrific aggression and arrest of the nuns and Adivasi Christians is not an isolated incident. To paraphrase what Pastor Martin Niemöller had said, 'If we stay silent today, there will be no one to protest when they come for us tomorrow.' The writer is a member of the CPI(M) Politburo
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
Malegaon verdict flags major shortcomings in investigation. NIA must appeal it
Just 10 days after the Bombay High Court acquitted 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case, highlighting critical procedural lapses in the investigation, a trial court in Mumbai has acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case. The outcome in both sensitive and high-profile cases raises serious and urgent questions about the perils of the due process of justice being relegated by the surround sound of a polarising politics — in the Malegaon case, the spotlight had turned to allegations and counter-allegations on 'Hindu terror', kicking off a dismal war of labels, and a flurry of often contrived comparisons and equivalences. The verdict in the case, as in the Mumbai blasts case before it, has put in the dock the conduct of investigating agencies and prosecution, and the systemic delays that often render justice, when it comes, too little too late. The trial in the Malegaon case began in December 2018, a decade after a bomb went off outside a mosque, killing six and injuring nearly a hundred others. The Court was clear on the intent of the attack, on the last day of Ramzan and before Navratri was to begin: 'It was apparent that conspirators caused bomb blast with an intent to terrorise the people, to cause loss to life and property, disruption of supplies and services essential to the community, to create communal rift and to endanger internal security of the State.' It is troubling that the investigation and prosecution of a case as consequential as this one was found to be riddled with glaring lapses and omissions, inconsistencies and contradictions. Special NIA Judge AK Lahoti found it necessary to mention that 'the evidence on record creates the grave suspicion against the accused but mere on suspicion there cannot be a conviction.' The probe into the Malegaon case was begun by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS). Hemant Karkare, the ATS chief at that time, heading the investigation, was killed in the Mumbai terror attack on November 26, 2008, only days after the first arrest in the case. The ATS had filed a chargesheet after collecting evidence, including phone taps, witness statements, and video recordings of the meetings where the conspiracy was allegedly hatched from the laptop of one of the accused. All these were deemed inadmissible in court since the agency had failed to fulfil the statutory requirement to prove the authenticity and reliability of electronic evidence. While transcripts were prepared from intercepted conversations, interceptions were not authorised in the specific period, and permissions were obtained belatedly, rendering the intercepted data unusable as evidence. In 2011, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the case and criticised the ATS probe, even as it continued moving it in the same direction. In 2016, it dropped MCOCA charges arguing that the ATS had not followed proper procedure in invoking the stringent anti-terror law. There were other loopholes and omissions too — for instance, 13 statements of witnesses went missing from the court records. The investigation in the Malegaon case was mired in political controversy over the (religious) colour and shade of terror right from the beginning. Investigators in cases such as this one do come under an enormous amount of pressure. But that is a challenge to be professionally navigated, it cannot lead to slipshod investigations and inordinate delays. Given that the court has underlined the several omissions of the state and said explicitly that there is 'grave suspicion,' the NIA must appeal the verdict, and make a better case.
