Gauhati High Court
Crl.A./291/2016 on 23 September, 2024
Author: K.R. Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
GAHC010114042016
2024:GAU-AS:9528-DB
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND
ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
Crl.A. No. 165/2016
MRS LANDHONI DEVI
W/O JEETEN SINGH, R/O VILL. AWANG SEKMAI, P.S. SEKMAI,
DIST. IMPHAL WEST, MANIPUR
- Versus -
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
with
Crl.A. No. 262/2016
SOUGAIJAM RAKESH SINGH @ S. RAKESH SINGH A-6
S/O DR. S. PRIYO KUMAR SINGH
R/O MOIRANGKHOM YEISKUL
P.S. IMPHAL WEST
DIST. IMPHAL WEST
MANIPUR
- Versus -
Page 1 of 261
THE NATIONAL INVESTIGTION AGENCY
with
Crl.A. No. 263/2016
SINAM GUNE SINGH @ S. GUNE SINGH
S/O LT. SINAM KUBER
R/O VILL.MOURANGTHEM SOUGAIJAM
LEIRAT
P.S. IMPHAL WEST
DIST. IMPHAL WEST
MANIPUR
- Versus -
THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
with
Crl.A. No. 264/2016
OINAM MANITON SINGHA A-15
S/O OINAM NILAMANI SINGHA
R/O VILL. BAHADURGRAM
P.S. UDHARBOND
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN 788030
- Versus -
THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Page 2 of 261
with
Crl.A. No. 265/2016
SRI W. NOREN SINGH A-8 @ W. NOREN MEETEI
S/O SRI WAYEMBAM TOMBA
R/O VILL.MOIRANGKAMPU
POROMPAT
IMPHAL EAST
MANIPUR
- Versus -
THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
with
Crl.A. No. 289/2016
O. SAMARJIT SINGH @ NARESH @ KADENG
S/O LT. O DHANANJOY SINGH
R/O KEISHAMPAT AHEIBAM LEIRAKILL
P.S. IMPHAL WEST
DIST. IMPHAL WEST
MANIPUR
- Versus -
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
with
Crl.A. No. 291/2016
Y. BRAJABIDHU SINGH
S/O LATE MADHU SINGH
Page 3 of 261
PALACE COMPOUND NEAR EASTERN GROUND
IMPHAL EAST MANIPUR
- Versus -
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
with
Crl.A. No. 295/2016
A. IBOMCHA
S/O LATE JOY KUMAR SINGH
R/O KHONGMAN
SONE-4
IMPHAL RIMS
MANIPUR
- Versus -
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
with
Crl.A. No. 299/2016
LAURENBUM JATISHOR SINGH @ TILEMBA
S/O SH. GULAMJAT SINGH
R/O VILL. MOIRANGKAMPU
P.S. IMPHAL EAST
DIST. IMPHAL WEST
MANIPUR
Page 4 of 261
- Versus -
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
with
Crl.A. No. 113/2017
N. DILIP SINGH
S/O- SRI N CHAOBA SINGH
R/O- VILL- SINGJAMEI
WAIKHOM LEIKAI
P.S- SINGJAMEI
DIST- IMPHAL WEST
MANIPUR
- Versus -
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
with
Crl.A. No. 115/2017
KHWAIRAKPAM JEETEN SINGH and KHOMBO @ DENE
S/O- LATE KH. SANAJAOBA SINGH
R/O- VILL- AWANG SEKMAI
P.S- SEKMAI
DIST- IMPHAL WEST
MANIPUR.
- Versus -
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Page 5 of 261
with
Crl.A. No. 145/2017
MUTUM IBOHAL
S/O MUTUM SHYAMKISHORE
R/O VILL. KABOWAKCHING
P.S. NAMBOL
DIST. BISHNUPUR
MANIPUR
- Versus -
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(C.A.V.)
Sl. Index Paragraph
1. Preliminaries 1 to 3
2. List of abbreviations used 4
3. Position of appellants during 5&6
trial
4. Facts of the case 7
5. Submissions by senior counsel 8
for the appellants in Crl.A. nos.
262/2016, 263/2016, 264/
2016, 265/ 2016 & 291/2016:
6. (I) General Submissions: 8 to 34
7. (II) Submissions in individual
appeals
8. (i) Submissions in Crl.A. 262/ 35 to 47
Page 6 of 261
2016 - Sougaijam Rakesh Singh
@ S. Rakesh Singh (A-6)
9. (ii) Submissions in Crl.A. 263/ 48 to 58
2016 - Sinam Gune Singh @ S.
Gune Singh (A-11)
10. (iii) Submissions in Crl.A. 264/ 59 & 60
2016 - Oinam Maniton Singha
(A- 15)
11. (iv) Submissions in Crl.A. 265/ 61 to 64
2016 - W. Noren Singh @ W.
Noren Meetei (A- 8)
12. (v) Submissions in Crl.A. 291/ 65 to 73
2016 - Y. Brajabidhu Singh (A-
24)
13. Submissions by learned counsel
for the appellants in other
appeals.
14. (vi) Submissions in Crl.A. 165/ 74 to 77
2016 - Landhoni Devi (A-14)
15. (vii) Submissions in Crl.A. 289/ 78 to 84
2016 - Oinam Samarjit Singh
@ Naresh @ Kadeng (A-7)
16. (viii) Submissions in Crl.A. 113/ 85 to 88
2017 - N. Dilip Singh (A-16)
17. (ix) Submissions in Crl.A. 115/ 89 to 102
2017 - Khwairakpam Jeeten
Singh @ Khombo @ Dene (A-
10)
18. (x) Submissions in Crl.A. 145/ 103 to 105
2017 - Mutum Ibohal Singh (A-
12)
19. (xi) Submissions in Crl.A. 299/ 106 to 110
2016 - Laurenbum Jatishor
Singh @ Tilemba (A-17)
20. (xii) Submissions in Crl.A. 295/ 111 to 128
2016
21. (a) General submissions of the 129 to 133
learned senior counsel for NIA
(respondent no.2)
22. (b) Submissions in Crl.A. 134 to 139
262/2016 - S. Rakesh Singh
(A-6)
23. (c) Submissions in Crl.A. 289/ 140 to 143
2016 - O. Samarjit Singh @
Naresh @ Kadeng (A-7)
Page 7 of 261
24. (d) Submissions in Crl.A. 113/ 144 to 151
2017 - N. Dilip Singh (A-16)
25. (e) Submissions in Crl.A. 115/ 152 to 157
2016 - Khwairakpam Jeeten
Singh @ Khombo @ Dene (A-
10)
26. (f) Submissions in Crl.A. 291/ 158 to 161
2016 - Y. Brajabidhu Singh (A-
24) and Crl.A. 295/2016 (A-25)
27. (g) Submissions in Crl.A. 165/ 162 to 163
2016 - Landhoni Devi (A-14)
28. Submissions in respect of M. 164 to 165
Ibohal (Crl.A. 145/2017), Sinam
Gune Singh @ S. Gune Singh @
Boy @ Wanglem @ Little Boy
(Crl.A. 263/2016) and
Laurenbum Jatishor Singh @
Tilemba (Crl.A. 299/2016):
29. General submissions by R.K.D. 166 to 169
Choudhury, learned DSGI for
respondent no.1
30. Submissions of DSGI in Crl.A. 170 to 173
283/ 2016 - Sinam Gune Singh
@ S. Gune Singh (A-11)
31. Submissions of DSGI in Crl.A. 174 to 178
145/ 2017 - M. Ibohal Singh
(A-12)
32. Submissions of DSGI in Crl.A. 179 to 183
145/ 2017 - Laurenbum
Jatishor Singh @ Tilemba (A-
17)
33. Reply submissions by senior 184 to 194
counsel for appellants
34. Submissions on Y. Brajabidhu 195 to 197
Singh (A-24) Crl.A. 291/2016.
35. Submissions in respect of W. 198 to 204
Noren Singh (A-8), appellant in
Crl.A. 265/2016; Sinam Gune
Singh @ S. Gune Singh @ Boy
@ Wanglem @ Little Boy (Crl.A.
263/2016) and Laurenbum
Jatishor Singh @ Tilemba
(Crl.A. 299/2016):
36. Submissions by learned DSGI 205 to 206
37. Reply submissions by learned 207 to 209
Page 8 of 261
counsel for other appellants
38. Points of determination 210
39. Preliminaries 214 to 219
40. On point of determination 216 to 284
no.(d)
41. Offence of committing 285 to 320
conspiracy punishable under
section 121A of the IPC
42 Examination of the individual 321 to 322
appeal of the appellants
43 (i) Crl. Appeal 262/2016 - S. 323 to 348
Rakesh Singh (A-6).
44. (ii) Crl. Appeal 289/2016 - O. 349 to 365
Samarjit Singh @ Naresh @
Kadeng (A-7).
45. (iii) Crl. Appeal 265/2016 - W. 366 to 391
Noren Singh @ W. Noren
Meetei (A-8)
46. (iv) Crl. Appeal 115/2017 - K. 392 to 417
Jeeten Singh @ Khombo @
Dene (A-10)
47. (v) Crl. Appeal 263/2016 - 418 to 434
Sinam Gune Singh @ S. Gune
Singh @ Boy @ Wanglem @
Little Boy (A-11)
48. (vi) Crl. Appeal 145/2017 - 435 to 449
Mutum Ibohal Singh @
Ngamba @ Sanjay (A-12)
49. (vii) Crl. Appeal 165/2016 - 450 to 460
Smt. Landhoni Devi (A-14)
50. (viii) Crl. Appeal 264/2016 - 461 to 470
Oinam Maniton Singha (A-15)
51. (ix) Crl. Appeal 113/2017 - N. 471 to 487
Dilip Singh @ Ibochou @ Mani
(A-16).
(x) Crl. Appeal 299/2015 - 488 to 495
Laurenbum Jatishor Singh @
Tilemba (A-17).
52. (xi) Crl. Appeal 291/2016 - Y. 496 to 514
Brajabidhu Singh (A-24); and
Crl. Appeal 295/2016 - A.
Ibomcha (A-25).
53. On point of determination no. 515 to 520
(a)
54. On point of determination no. 521 to 527
Page 9 of 261
(b)
55. On point of determination no. 528 to 530
(c)
56. On point of determination no. 531
(e)
57. Order 532 to 534
List of appearing counsel, date of hearing and date of judgment.
Advocates for Mr. D.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate
the appellants Mr. M. Gunadhar Singh
Mr. Rajshekhar
Mr. B. Prasad
Advocates for the Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, D.S.G.I.
Union of India Ms. L. Devi
Advocates for the Mr. D.K. Das, Senior Advocate
N.I.A. Ms. P.K. Darjee
Ms. G.D. Choudhury
Mr. D. Choudhury
Dates of hearing 01.02.2024, 04.02.2024, 05.02.2024,
06.02.2024, 07.02.2024, 15.02.2024,
16.02.2024, 16.02.2024, 19.02.2024,
20.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 22.02.2024,
23.02.2024, 26.02.2023, 27.02.2024,
28.02.2024, 29.02.2024. 01.03.2024 and
12.08.2024.
Date of judgment 23.09.2024
(K.R. Surana, J.)
Preliminaries:
Heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, assisted
by Mr. B. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.
262/2016, Crl.A.263/2016, Crl.A.264/2016, Crl.A.265/2016 and
Crl.A.291/2016. Also heard Mr. M. Gunadhar Singh, learned
counsel for the appellants in Crl.A.289/2016, Crl.A.291/2016,
Crl.A.295/2016, Crl.A.299/2016, Crl.A.113/2017, Crl.A.115/2017
Page 10 of 261
and Crl.A.145/2017. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned
DSGI for respondent no.1, assisted by Ms. L. Devi, Advocate, and
Mr. D.K. Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. G.D.
Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
2) By filing these 12 (twelve) separate appeals, the
respective appellants, who have been convicted and sentenced,
have assailed the common judgment and sentence dated
08.06.2016, passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Guwahati
in Special NIA Case No. 1/2010.
3) The judgment and sentence impugned herein arise out of
common trial and thus, common issues are involved. Hence, all
these appeals were heard analogously. Therefore, all these
appeals are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
4) In this judgment, certain abbreviations have been used,
which are reiterated hereinafter for the sake of convenient reading
of this judgment. The abbreviations are as under:-
Sl Full description of words Abbreviation used.
a Central Forensic Science Laboratory, 'CFSL Chandigarh
Chandigarh
b Compilations submitted by instructing Comp.
counsel for appellants in Crl.A. 262/
2016, Crl.A. 263/2016, Crl.A. 264/2016,
Crl.A. 265/2016 and Crl.A. 291/2016.
c Court of Special Judge, NIA, Assam, Trial Court
Guwahati
d Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 CrPC
e Imphal Urban Cooperative Bank IUCB
Page 11 of 261
f Indian Penal Code, 1898. IPC
g Investigating Officer I.O.
h National Investigation Agency NIA
i National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 NIA Act
j Trial Court Record TCR
k United National Liberation Front UNLF
l Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 UA(P)A
Position of the appellants during trial:
5) In this appeal, the appellants are hereinafter referred to
as per their position as accused during trial.
6) In the trial proceeding, the position of the appellants and
other accused persons are as follows:-
Sl. Name Accused Appeal no. Sentence
no.
1. Khungdong Tomba A- 1 - Absconder (not
@ Bikramjit @ tried in this batch).
Pambi @ Sunil
2. Y. Nabinchand @ A- 2 - Absconder (not
Abo @ Dilip @ tried in this batch).
Tiken
3. Brahmacharimayum A- 3 - Absconder (not
Gopal Krishna tried in this batch).
Sharma @
Narengbam Loken
@ Niken @ Inao @
Ibumgo @ Manoj
Singh @ Benjamin
4. Brahmacharimayum A- 4 - Absconder (not
Angobi Sharma tried in this batch).
5. Thaoroijam Herojit A- 5 - Absconder (not
Singh @ Prem @ tried in this batch).
Mangal
6. Sougaijam Rakesh A- 6 Crl.A. 262/2016 S.18 UA(P)A - 8 yrs
Singh and fine.
S.20 UA(P)A - 7 yrs
Page 12 of 261
and fine.
S.121A IPC - 10 yr.
and fine.
Fine are with
default stipulation.
7. Oinam Samarjit A- 7 Crl.A. 264/2016 S.18 UA(P)A - 8 yrs
Singh @ Naresh @ S.20 UA(P)A - 7 yrs
Kadeng and fine.
S.121A IPC - 10 yr.
and fine.
Fine are with
default stipulation.
8. Wayenbam Noren A- 8 Crl.A. 265/2016 S.18 UA(P)A - 8 yrs
Singh @ W. Noren S.20 UA(P)A - 7 yrs
Meetei @ Thoiba and fine.
S.121A IPC - 10 yr.
and fine.
Fine are with
default stipulation.
9. Naba Kumar Singh A- 9 No appeal filed. S.17 UA(P)A - 7 yrs
@ Maibam Sarat and fine.
Singh @ Chaoren S.20 UA(P)A - 7 yrs
@ Suresh and fine.
Fine are with
default stipulation.
10. Khwairakpam A- 10 Crl.A. 115/2017 S.17 UPA(P)A - 7
Jeeten Singh @ yrs and fine.
Khomba @ Dene S.18 UA(P)A - 8 yrs
S.20 UA(P)A - 7 yrs
and fine.
S.121A IPC - 10 yr.
and fine.
Fine are with
default stipulation.
11. Sinam Gune Singh A- 11 Crl.A. 263/2016 S.18 UA(P)A - 8 yrs
@ S. Gune Singh @ S.20 UA(P)A - 7 yrs
Boy @ Wanglen @ and fine.
Little Boy S.121A IPC - 10 yr.
and fine.
Fine are with
default stipulation.
12. Mutum Ibohal A- 12 Crl.A. 145/2017 S.18 UA(P)A - 8 yrs
Singh @ Ngamba S.20 UA(P)A - 7 yrs
@ Sanjay and fine.
S.121A IPC - 10 yr.
and fine.
Fine are with
default stipulation.
13. Km. Chingakham A- 13 No appeal filed. S.20 UA(P)A - 7 yrs
Page 13 of 261
Bembem Chanu @ and fine.
Shankhenbi @ Fine are with
Henbi @ Pempem default stipulation.
14. Mrs. Landhoni Devi A- 14 Crl.A. 165/2016 S.20 UA(P)A - 7 yrs
and fine.
15. Oiman Maniton A- 15 Crl.A. 264/2016 S.20 UA(P)A - 7 yrs
Singha and fine.
Fine are with
default stipulation.
16. Ningombam Dilip A- 16 Crl.A. 113/2017 S.18 UA(P)A - 8 yrs
Singh @ Ibochou @ S.20 UA(P)A - 7 yrs
Mani and fine.
S.121A IPC - 10 yr.
and fine.
Fine are with
default stipulation.
17. Laurenbum Jatishor A- 17 Crl.A. 299/2016 S.18 UA(P)A - 8 yrs
Singh @ Tilemba S.20 UA(P)A - 7 yrs
and fine.
S.121A IPC - 10 yr.
and fine.
Fine are with
default stipulation.
18. Moirangthem Joy A- 18 No appeal filed. S.18 UA(P)A - 8 yrs
Singh @ JoyJao @ S.20 UA(P)A - 7 yrs
Nongyai @ with fine.
Nilachandra S.121A IPC - 10 yr.
and fine.
Fine are with
default stipulation.
19. Raj Kumar Meghen A- 19 No appeal filed. S.18 UA(P)A - 8 yrs
@ Sanayaima S.18-B UA(P)A - 7
yrs with fine.
S.20 UA(P)A - 7 yrs
with fine.
S.121A IPC - 10 yr.
and fine.
S.122 IPC 10 yrs
and fine.
Fine are with
default stipulation.
20. Narengbam Marijit A-20 - Suppl. Charge
Singh @ Thabal sheet filed. Not
tried in this batch.
21. Chabkungbam A-21 - Suppl. Charge
Thanil @ sheet filed. Not
Nabachandra @ tried in this batch.
Chabungbam
Laipangamba
Page 14 of 261
22. L. Iwanthaba @ A-22 - Suppl. Charge
Nanao Singh @ sheet filed. Not
Ashok Singh tried in this batch.
20. Ningthoujam Bomi A- 23 Crl.A. 169/2016 S.20 UA(P)A - 7 yrs
Singh (since with fine.
deceased) S.21 UA(P)A- 7
years with fine.
Fine are with
default stipulation.
21. Y. Brajabidhu Singh A- 24 Crl.A. 291/2016 S.20 UA(P)A - 7 yrs
with fine.
S.21 UA(P)A- 7
years with fine.
Fine are with
default stipulation.
22. A. Ibomcha A- 25 Crl.A. 295/2016 S.20 UA(P)A - 7 yrs
with fine.
S.21 UA(P)A- 7
years with fine.
Fine are with
default stipulation.
The case of the prosecution, in brief:
7) In brief, the prosecution case is as follows:-
a. On the basis of information about presence of members
of UNLF in Guwahati, the police conducted raid in a
particular area on 30.04.2010, the accused nos. 1 and 2,
who had subsequently absconded, were arrested in
Guwahati in connection with Noonmati P.S. Case
No.159/2010 under sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122, 468
IPC and sections 10 and 13 of UA(P)A, corresponding to
G.R. Case No. 3115/2010 and certain articles like laptop,
pen-drives, mobile phones, wireless internet connection
and cash of Rs.50,000/- was recovered from them.
b. The other accused nos. 6 to 18 and 23 to 25 were
Page 15 of 261
arrested on various dates. On 30.11.2010, R.K. Meghen
(A-19), the Chairman, UNLF was arrested in Motihari in
Bihar allegedly while coming from Nepal.
c. In course of investigation, it was revealed that the
arrested persons were hatching a conspiracy to wage war
against the Union of India, the investigation was
transferred to NIA, and the case was re-registered as FIR
No. 10/2010 dated 17.09.2010 under sections 120-B, 121,
121-A, 122, 468 of the IPC and sections 10 and 13 of
UA(P)A.
d. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet dated
14.02.2011 under sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122 IPC and
sections 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B and 20 of the UA(P)A was
submitted by the I.O. before the Trial Court. The relevant
copies were supplied to the accused persons who had
appeared in trial. The learned Trial Court had explained
charges to the appearing accused persons on 06.09.2012,
to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
e. Particulars of charges read over and explained by the
learned Trial Court to the accused persons are as under:-
Sl. Name Accused Charge framed/ explained
no. under sections.
1. Th. Herojit Singh @ A- 5 S.120B, 121A, 121, 122
Prem @ Mangal IPC; S.16, 17, 18, 20 of
UA(P)A.
2. Sougaijam Rakesh A- 6 S.120B, 121A, 121, 122
Singh IPC; S.16, 17, 18, 20 of
UA(P)A.
Page 16 of 261
3. Oinam Samarjit A- 7 S.120B, 121A, 121, 122
Singh @ Naresh @ IPC; S.16, 17, 18, 20 of
Kadeng UA(P)A.
4. Wayenbam Noren A- 8 S.120B, 121A, 121, 122
Singh @ W. Noren IPC; S.16, 17, 18, 20 of
Meetei @ Thoiba UA(P)A.
5. Naba Kumar Singh A- 9 S.120B, 121A, 121, 122
@ Maibam Sarat IPC; S.16, 17, 18, 20 of
Singh @ Chaoren UA(P)A.
@ Suresh
6. Kh. Jeeten Singh @ A- 10 S.120B, 121A, 121, 122
Khomba @ Dene IPC; S.16, 17, 18, 20 of
UA(P)A.
7. Sinam Gune Singh A- 11 S.120B, 121A, 121, 122
@ S. Gune Singh @ IPC; S.16, 17, 18, 20 of
Boy @ Wanglen @ UA(P)A.
Little Boy
8. Mutum Ibohal A- 12 S.120B, 121A, 121, 122
Singh @ Ngamba IPC; S.16, 17, 18, 20 of
@ Sanjay UA(P)A.
9. KM. Chingakham A- 13 S.120B, 121A, 121, 122
Bembem Chanu @ IPC; S.16, 17, 18, 20 of
Shankhenbi @ UA(P)A.
Henbi @ Pempem
10. Mrs. Landhoni Devi A- 14 S.120B, 121A, 121, 122
IPC; S.16, 17, 18, 20 of
UA(P)A.
11. Oiman Maniton A- 15 S.120B, 121A, 121, 122
Singha IPC; S.16, 17, 18, 20 of
UA(P)A.
12. Ningombam Dilip A- 16 S.120B, 121A, 121, 122
Singh @ Ibochou @ IPC; S.16, 17, 18, 20 of
Mani UA(P)A.
13. Laurenbum Jatishor A- 17 S.120B, 121A, 121, 122
Singh @ Tilemba IPC; S.16, 17, 18, 20 of
UA(P)A.
14. M. Joy Singh @ A- 18 S.120B, 121A, 121, 122
JoyJao @ Nongyai IPC; S.16, 17, 18, 20 of
@ Nilachandra UA(P)A and S.18A of
UA(P)A.
15. Raj Kumar Meghen A- 19 S.120B, 121A, 121, 122
@ Sanayaima IPC; S.16, 17, 18, 20 of
UA(P)A; and S.18B of
UA(P)A.
19. Ningthoujam Bomi A- 23 S.120B, 121A IPC; S.17,
Singh (since 18, 20, 21 of UA(P)A.
deceased)
20. Y. Brajabidhu Singh A- 24 S.120B, 121A IPC; S.17,
18, 20, 21 of UA(P)A.
Page 17 of 261
21. A. Ibomcha A- 25 S.120B, 121A IPC; S.17,
18, 20, 21 of UA(P)A.
f. The TCR reveals that the accused nos. A-6, A-14, A-15
and A-23 (since deceased) were on bail during trial. The
accused nos. A-5, A-7 to A-13, A-16 to A-19, A-24 and A-
25 were in custody during trial. However, A-1 to A-5 were
absconding. The accused nos. A-20 to A-22 is not tried
along with the present batch of accused persons. Their
status is not reflected in the impugned judgment.
g. In the course of trial, the prosecution had examined 84
witnesses. The list of the witnesses examined by the
prosecution is attached to this judgment as Appendix-A.
During trial, the documents exhibited by the PWs were
marked as Exhibit nos. 1 to 205 series; Ext.X series and
Ext.Y series. The list of documentary exhibits and material
exhibits are appended to this judgment and marked as
Appendix-B and Appendix-C respectively.
h. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused
persons were then examined by the learned Trial Court
under section 313 CrPC by bringing the incriminating
circumstances against them in form of questions. The
accused took a plea of total denial.
i. The learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and
order dated 08.06.2016, convicted all the appearing
accused persons (i.e. the appellants herein). The
Page 18 of 261
sentence imposed on the appellants are mentioned in the
chart appended to paragraph 6 herein before.
Submissions by the learned senior counsel for the
appellants in Crl.A. Nos. 262/2016, 263/2016, 264/2016,
265/2016 and 291/2016:
I. Submissions common to above cases:
8) The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants had
referred to the provisions of sections 2(k) 2(l), 2(m), 10, 15, 20,
30, and 35 of the UA(P)A.
9) It was submitted that section 20 of the UA(P)A contains
two postulates. Firstly, one has to be a member of a terrorist
organization and secondly, the organization must be involved in a
terrorist act.
10) It was submitted that the exercise of power under section
35 of the UA(P)A was an arbitrary and unilateral executive action
of the Government to include a particular organization to the
schedule, which is not subject to the scrutiny of the Court or
Tribunal.
11) By referring to the provisions of sections 10(a)(i),10(b)(i),
10(b)(ii), 20 and 38(2) of the UA(P)A, it was submitted that
although they were all broadly referred to offences relating to
membership of the terrorist organization, but punishment
prescribed in all the three provisions are different.
Page 19 of 261
a. Under section 10(a)(i), a person is liable to be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two
years, and shall be liable to fine.
b. Under section 10(b)(i), a person is liable to be punished
with death or imprisonment for life, and shall be liable to
fine.
c. Under section 10(b)(ii), a person is liable to be punished
with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than
five years, and shall be liable to fine.
d. If a person is a member of a terrorist gang or
organisation which is involved in a terrorist act, then
under section 20 of UA(P)A, such person shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to imprisonment for life, and shall be liable to fine.
e. Under section 38(2), a person committing offence relating
to membership of a terrorist organisation under sub-
section (1) of section 38 shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or with
fine, or both.
12) Accordingly, it was submitted that as different
punishments were prescribed for the aforesaid four provisions of
sections 10(a)(i),10(b)(i), 10(b)(ii), 20 and 38(2) of the UA(P)A,
the legislative intent was to provide for different punishment
having regard to the nature of offence. Accordingly, it is submitted
Page 20 of 261
that it would be a travesty of justice that for merely being a
member of a terrorist organization, which was not linked to any
particular terrorist Act, a person will suffer life imprisonment under
Section 20 of the UA(P)A; but if a person is involved in the
activities in furtherance of the object of the terrorist organization,
he would suffer imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years
as provided in Section 38(2) of the UA(P)A; and any person who
continues to be a member of the unlawful association would suffer
imprisonment for a maximum period of two years as prescribed
under Section 10(a)(i). Accordingly, it was submitted that the
prosecution was required to prove that the appellants were not
only members of the proscribed organization i.e. UNLF, but they
were also involved in activities of UNLF as provided under sub-
clause (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv)of clause (a) of Section 10.
13) It was further submitted that in relation to offence under
Section 38 of the UA(P)A, the prosecution had to prove that the
appellants had committed offence related to membership of the
terrorist organization.
14) It was submitted that in order to convict the appellants
under Section 38 of the UA(P)A, the prosecution had to establish
(i) that they had either associated themselves or professed to be
associated with UNLF with an intention to furtherance of its
activities; and that (ii) they had also committed an offence related
to membership of the terrorist organization. By referring to the
provisions of section 38 of the UA(P)A, it was submitted that the
Page 21 of 261
prosecution must prove that the appellants were involved in a
terrorist act.
15) By referring to the judgment in the case of Arup Bhuyan
v. State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 377 (para-8), [hereinafter
referred to as Arup Bhuyan (1)], it was submitted that an
observation was made by the Supreme Court of India to the effect
that the TADA Court had convicted the appellant in the said case
under Section 3(5) of TADA, which makes mere membership of a
banned organization, a criminal act. It was submitted that the said
observation was reiterated in a subsequent judgment rendered by
the Supreme Court of India in the case of Indra Das v. State of
Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 380. It was submitted that in the case of
Thwaha Fasal & Ors. v. Union of India, MANU/SC/1000/2021,
decided by the Supreme Court of India dealt with the provisions of
Section 20 of the UA(P)A, which is almost para materia to the
provisions of Section 3(5) of the TADA Act. In the said context, it
was submitted that perhaps the decision of Kalpnath Rai v. State
(through CBI), (1997) 8 SCC 732, was not placed before the Court
when the aforesaid cases were decided. In the said regard, it was
submitted that in para-35 of the case of Kalpnath Rai (supra), it
was held that there are two postulates in section 3(5) of the TADA
Act to the effect that firstly, the accused should have to be a
member of the terrorist gang or terrorist organization after
23.05.1993, and the second postulate was that the said gang or
organization should have been involved in terrorist acts,
subsequent to the said date and it was also held that except that
Page 22 of 261
the provision of section 3(5) cannot be used against any person.
Thus, it was submitted that the same principle is attracted in the
present case in hand.
16) It is also submitted that in the case of Arup Bhuyan (1)
(supra) was referred to a larger Bench. Accordingly, a 3-Judge
Bench of the Supreme Court of India, after examined the decision
and in Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam & Anr., MANU/SC/0294/
2023 [hereinafter referred to as Arup Bhuyan (3)], and recalled
the judgment of the Court reported in the case of (i) Arup Bhuyan
(I) and (ii) Indra Das (supra).
17) However, it was submitted that in the said case of Arup
Bhuyan (3) (supra), though the Supreme Court of India had
interpreted the provisions of sections 10(a)(i), 3 and 4 of the
UA(P)A, but in the entire judgment, there is no reference to the
provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the UA(P)A and accordingly, it
was submitted that with all respect, the observation made in the
said judgment regarding the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the
UA(P)A, cannot be read as the ratio of the said judgment.
18) The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants had laid
stress on paragraphs 14 and 23.2 of the judgment in the case of
Arup Bhuyan (3) (supra), and it was submitted that section 20 of
the UA(P)A cannot be read to mean that mere membership of a
banned organization will incriminate the appellants unless the
organisation is involved in a terrorist act. It was submitted that in
this case, the prosecution could not prove that the appellants had
Page 23 of 261
committed any act of violence or incited people to violence and did
any act intending to create disorder or disturbance of public peace
by resort to violence. It was submitted that over and above the
membership of a banned organization there must be a mens rea
required to be established and proved and/or there must be a
further overt or covert act. Therefore, for being a member of the
terrorist gang or organization, one cannot be punishable with life
imprisonment without proving that the appellants were a member
of a terrorist organization and that the said terrorist organisation is
involved in a terrorist act.
19) In order to explain his submissions, it has been submitted
that in the schedule of the UA(P)A, there are 5 listed terrorist
organization for the State of Manipur. Accordingly, it was
submitted that it cannot be the intention of the legislature that if a
terrorist act occurs in the State of Manipur, notwithstanding who is
the culprit or which terrorist organization is involved in the terrorist
act, all members of all the terrorist organizations were to be
arrested and/or charged for committing an offence punishable
under various provisions of UA(P)A.
20) It was submitted that in the present case in hand, the
Trial Court had held that the appellants were not guilty of any
terrorist act and they were acquitted for committing offence under
Section 16 of the UA(P)A. However, the appellants were held
guilty of being the members of the terrorist organization, but
without connecting any of the appellants to commission of any
Page 24 of 261
particular offence.
21) It was also submitted that in para-84 of the impugned
judgment, three specific findings were returned by the learned
Trial Court, viz., (i) it is not conclusively proved that the appellants
had committed any terrorist act; (ii) though there was some
evidence that extremist organizations did violence in Manipur, it
was held that commission of any terrorist act by the appellants
was not proved; (iii) there was no circumstances on record to
show any specific terrorist act was committed by the appellants in
conspiracy of others on the direction of the leadership of UNLF.
Accordingly, it was held that the appellants were not guilty of
commission of offence punishable under section 16 of the UA(P)A.
It was also submitted that from the finding in paragraph 84 of the
impugned judgment, it was held that A-6 to A-19 were not
involved in any terrorist activity for which the accused were
charged.
22) It was submitted that it is only by way of inference that
the appellants have been held to be the members of UNLF. In this
regard, it was submitted that the prosecution had placed heavy
reliance on a series of e-mails and attachments to the e-mails to
prove that the appellants were members of UNLF, a terrorist
organization. In this regard, the learned Trial Court had heavily
relied on the evidence of PW nos. 9, 17, 39, 61 and 63. In the said
context, it was submitted that the PW nos. 69 and 63 were the
employees of PW-39 and therefore, the learned Trial Court had not
Page 25 of 261
discussed the evidence of the said PW nos. 61 and 63.
Accordingly, it was submitted that in his argument he was not
referring to the evidence of PW nos. 61 and 63.
23) In the context of the finding of the learned Trial Court in
paragraph 84 of the impugned judgment, it was specifically held
that the appellants were not guilty of committing any terrorist act
and hence, they were not convicted of commission of offence
punishable under Section 16 of the UA(P)A. Nonetheless, in para-
83 of the impugned judgment, it was held that the appellants were
the members of UNLF, which is a terrorist organization. In the said
context, it was submitted that the learned Trial Court did not refer
to any evidence that UNLF had committed any terrorist act.
Moreover, it was submitted that the finding in this case is that the
appellants for whom he was submitting, were members of UNLF,
was only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It was
submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses, including PW
nos. 9, 17 and 39, had proved that the appellants were connected
with any criminal or terrorist act.
24) By referring to the definition of the word "document", as
provided in sections 3, 59, 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872,
it was submitted that the e-mails and their attachments (Ext.5 and
Ext.115), being inadmissible in evidence, could not have been
relied upon by the learned Trial Court. Moreover, it was submitted
that the said exhibits were not proved in accordance with law. It
was submitted that the certificate issued by Satheesh Chand (PW-
Page 26 of 261
53) purportedly under section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872,
lacked any reference to the manner of how the said e-mails and
attachments were printed. Accordingly, it was submitted that the
said section 65B(4) certificate was valid only for downloading of
the e-mails, and the said lapse in evidence was not considered by
the learned Trial Court. It was submitted that although there is
evidence to show that the laptop, pen-drive of A-18 and A-19 were
seized, but the prosecution did not make any endeavour to prove
that those e-mails were accessed by the use of those seized
laptops and/or mobile phones of the said accused nos. 18 and 19.
25) In the said context, it was submitted that the prosecution
had built-up a case against the appellants, amongst others, on the
strength of disclosure statement (Ext.111) of M. Joy Singh (A-18).
By referring to the recovery memo (Ext.112) of A-18, it was
submitted that the said exhibit was for e-mails that were
downloaded from one out of his two e-mail addresses i.e.
greenplate09@ gmail.com.
26) It was submitted that M. Joy Singh (A-18) had given his
disclosure statement (Ext.111). A recovery memo under section 27
of the Evidence Act, 1872 (Ext.112) was prepared on the basis of
statement made by A-18. Satheesh Chand (PW-53) had exhibited
a certificate (Ext.114) issued under section 65B of the Evidence
Act, 1872 to the effect that the computer installed at NIA Office,
New Delhi, using which data were recovered on the disclosure by
A-18 was under his technical control and supervision. The said
Page 27 of 261
PW-53 had stated that M. Joy Singh (A-18) was brought to his
office on 19.11.2010 and his computer was provided to him. He
opened his e-mail account greenplate09@ gmail.com with his
password and the e-mails from inbox, outbox, sent items and draft
was downloaded by A-18. Thereafter, PW-53 copied all those e-
mails and attachments on to a new sterile hard disk to be
forwarded to forensic laboratory for the purpose of examination.
PW-53 had exhibited e-mails, which were marked as Ext. 115
series (further marked as E/1 to E/156) by projecting that those
were print-out of e-mails.
27) It was submitted that the prosecution had not proved any
certificate under section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 in respect
of the print-outs i.e. Ext.115 series.
28) In the aforesaid context, it was submitted that the
learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate that as per the
evidence of Surinder Singh Bakshi (PW-79), the original e-mails
were in Meitei language of Manipur. It was submitted that the
learned Trial Court had not stated in the impugned judgment that
the Court knew and could read Meitei language of Manipur.
Nonetheless, by referring to the exhibited e-mails (Ext.5 series and
Ext.115 series), it was submitted that the said exhibited
documents were the English translated version of e-mails.
However, there was no evidence on record regarding the
correctness or reliability of those e-mails.
29) It was submitted that the prosecution version was that
Page 28 of 261
the e-mails were translated by one Assistant Professor at
Bangalore, who was projected to be well versed with Meitei
language of Manipur. But the prosecution did not disclose his
name or particulars before the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, it
was submitted that in the charge-sheet, the said person was
referred to as "Protected Witness no. 80", but during trial the
prosecution had not examined the said "Protected Witness no. 80".
It was submitted that the copy of the previous statement of the
"Protected Witness no. 80" was not provided to the accused
persons during trial. Moreover, it was submitted that in trial, the
original e-mail in Meitei language or secondary evidence of their
contents were also not proved by the prosecution. It was further
submitted that English translated copies of the e-mails (Ext.5
series and Ext.115 series) were neither a primary nor a secondary
evidence of the original e-mails, which were in Meitei language.
Hence, it was submitted that the entire Ext.115 series were
inadmissible. By referring to a certificate issued by the Protected
Witness No. 80 (Ext.185), it was submitted that the said certificate
does not bear any signature and was not proved by its author. In
this regard it was submitted that Surinder Singh Bakshi (PW-79),
who had exhibited Ext.185, had admitted in his cross-examination
that "It is true that no mention was made in Ext.185/1 to
Ext.185/13 about the person who translated the e-mails from
Meitei (Manipuri language) to English."
30) By referring to the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4, it was
submitted that the said witnesses were also protected witnesses,
Page 29 of 261
but they were produced before the learned Trial Court and they
were duly cross-examined by the appellants and other accused
persons. However, the prosecution had not assigned any reason
for not examining "Protected Witness no. 80" during trial. Hence, it
was submitted that the trial and conviction of the appellants was
vitiated because the learned Trial Court had relied on Ext.185,
though its author was not examined by the prosecution.
31) It was submitted that the learned Trial Court had justified
the acceptance of English translated e-mails by holding in
paragraph 42 of the impugned judgment to the effect that the
accused are Manipuri and they could have raised objection if the
translation was incorrect. Accordingly, it was submitted that the
learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate the well settled legal
position that the electronic evidence could only be proved in
accordance with the prescription of section 65B of the Evidence
Act, 1872 and reverse burden could not be shifted to the
appellants to prove that Ext.5 series and Ext.115 series was not
correctly translated.
32) It was submitted that in respect of an electronic
document, its admissibility is the first point to be decided and its
reliability would be the second point to be decided.
33) In connection with electronic evidence, reliance was
placed on the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C.
Shukla, (1988) 3 SCC 410 (para 15, 17).
Page 30 of 261
34) The following cases were also cited, being (i) Union of
India v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784 (para 10), (ii) Arun Bhuyan v.
State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 377, (iii) Indra Das v. State of
Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 380, (iv) Kalpnath Rai v. State (through
CBI), (1997) 8 SCC 732, (v) Thwaha Fasal & Ors. v. Union of
India, (2021) 0 Supreme (SC) 650.
II. Submissions on individual appeals:
(i) Crl. Appeal No. 262/2016: Sougaijam Rakesh Singh @
S. Rakesh Singh (A-6):
35) Sougaijam Rakesh Singh @ S. Rakesh Singh (A-6) is the
appellant in Crl. Appeal no. 262/ 2016. He was convicted under
Section 18 and 20 of UA(P)A and section 121A IPC. The sentence
awarded to him has been referred in the chart at para-6 above.
36) It was submitted that from the evidence of the PWs, the
identity of A-6 could not be proved. Although PW nos. 9 and 17
have stated the name of "Rakesh", but no evidence was tendered
to show that the said "Rakesh" was the accused no. 6, whose
name was taken by Nongthombam Premchand (PW-9) and M.C.
Arun (PW-17). It was also submitted that from the conjoint
reading of evidence of PW-9 and PW-17, there is no evidence that
A-6 was a member of UNLF.
37) It was submitted that the evidence of M.C. Arun (PW-17)
was referred for showing that he had met A-6 at Bangkok. In the
said context, it is submitted that the passport of PW-17 was not
Page 31 of 261
exhibited through him. However, the passport of A-6 (Ext.143)
was exhibited by one Ramananda Sairemcha (PW-69), who was a
travel agent and the prosecution did not prove that he was the
custodian of the passport of A-6. Nonetheless, the said PW-69 had
not exhibited the relevant entry of A-6, visiting Bangkok.
Moreover, the passport or any other document of A-6 regarding
his visit to Bangkok was not proved by the prosecution. Hence, it
was submitted that the visit of A-6 to Bangkok was not proved by
the prosecution.
38) It was submitted that the evidence of Nongthombam
Premchand (PW-9) was misread and misconstrued by the learned
Trial Court. In this regard, it was submitted that in paragraph 70
of the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court had wrongly
recorded to the effect that A-6 had proposed to bear the expenses
of PW-9.
39) The examination-in-chief of Ng. Robert Singh (PW-39)
was read to show that the said PW had made a general allegation
that they were required to pay all the underground organisations
including UNLF. However, in his cross-examination, PW-39 had
stated that he cannot say if the members of UNLF cadre
demanded money from his family members or his firm. Moreover,
PW-39 had admitted that a sum of Rs.60.00 lakh, invested by A-6
in his firm, was his personal money and not related to UNLF. Thus,
it was submitted that this was a case of no evidence against the
appellant. It was also submitted that while convicting the
Page 32 of 261
appellant, the learned Trial Court had either misread or
misconstrued the cross-examination of PW-39.
40) By referring to (i) the evidence of PW-39; (ii) cash
production memo (Ext.87), and (iii) order dated 18.08.2011
(Ext.88), passed by the Designated Authority, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Govt. of India, regarding retention of seized money, it was
submitted that as the order of retention of money was passed
after 48 hours from the time of its seizure and therefore, as per
the provisions of section 25(2) of UA(P)A, the retention of money
was illegal.
41) It was also submitted that in his evidence, Ng. Robert
Singh (PW-39) had disclosed to the effect that on being asked by
the I.O., he had withdrawn a cash amount of Rs.17.00 lakh from
his bank account, which was produced by him and handed it over
to the I.O. Accordingly, it was submitted that PW-39 had
withdrawn his personal money from his own bank account, which
the prosecution is projecting as if the said amount formed a part
of Rs.60.00 lakh claimed by PW-39 to be invested by A-6. It was
submitted that from the cross-examination of PW-39, it was clear
that no part money invested by A-6 allegedly belonged to UNLF. It
was submitted that from the evidence of PW-39, it was evident
that the Designated Authority, vide order dated 18.08.2011
(Ext.88), had directed PW-39 to submit his objection, if any, as to
why such money should not be retained/ forfeited. Thus, no such
notice was served on A-6. By referring to the cross-examination of
Page 33 of 261
PW-39, it was submitted that the said witness had admitted that a
sum of Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakh only) was
withdrawn by him from bank at Delhi and handed it to Swayam
Prakash Pani, I.O. (PW-84), who had thereafter seized that money
vide production memo (Ext.87), prepared at Delhi. PW-39 had
denied that the said money was seized from A-6.
42) It was submitted that Ext.92(2) is a kucha slip, exhibited
by PW-39. The said document purportedly containing handwriting
of PW-39 was neither shown to him nor was it proved by him. It
was projected that by the said writing, PW-39 had recorded that a
sum of Rs.17,00,000/- was due to A-6.
43) It was also submitted that the kucha cash book (Ext.91)
are loose slips, which was a manufactured document and cannot
be said to be a part of books of accounts within the meaning of
Section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and as such it could not have
been read in evidence by the learned Trial Court. It was submitted
that during the examination of A-6 under section 313 CrPC, he was
not examined on Ext.91 series or in respect of cash of
Rs.17,00,000/- that was withdrawn from the bank by A-6 and
handed over to the I.O. (PW-84).
44) It was submitted that A-6 was acquitted of charges of
committing offence under section 120B IPC and therefore, on the
same set of evidence, A-6 could not have been held to be guilty of
committing conspiracy under Section 121A IPC. Thus, it was
submitted that though the learned Trial Court had exonerated A-6
Page 34 of 261
of conspiracy under section 120B IPC, without any proof that some
terrorist act, whatsoever, was committed either by A-6 or by the
UNLF, the appellant was wrongly convicted under section 18 of the
UA(P)A. Therefore, it was submitted that the conviction of A-6 for
committing offence punishable under section 121A IPC and section
18 of the UA(P)A was perverse and not sustainable on facts and in
law.
45) It was submitted that vide two seizure memo i.e. Ext.46
and Ext.47, no recovery was made from A-6. By referring to
paragraphs 27, 47, 56 to 63 and 86 of the impugned judgment, it
was submitted that the evidence of PW-7 does not implicate A-6 in
any way.
46) It was submitted that in paragraph 52 of the impugned
judgment, it was held by the learned Trial Court that the e-mails
proved that A-5 to A-18 were involved with UNLF. In the said
context, it was submitted that if the said finding is upheld by this
Court, then it would mean that if two persons exchange e-mails
and say that 'A' has murdered 'B', there would be no necessity for
the prosecution to find the dead body or to prove that 'A' had
murdered 'B', and the e-mail authored by 'Y' and sent to 'Z' would
become an admissible evidence against 'A'. Moreover, it was also
reiterated that none of the e-mails (Ext.5 and Ext.115) were
proved as per the requirement of section 65B of the Evidence Act,
1872 and thus, those exhibits ought to have been rejected by the
learned Trial Court.
Page 35 of 261
47) Hence, it was submitted that the conviction of A-6 was
required to be set aside.
(ii) Crl. Appeal No. 263/2016: Sinam Gune Singh @ S.
Gune Singh (A-11):
48) Sinam Gune Singh @ S. Gune Singh @ Boy @ Wanglem
@ Little Boy, the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 263/2016 is A-11. He
was found guilty of commission of offence punishable under
sections 18 and 20 of UA(P)A and section 121A of the IPC. The
sentence awarded to him is mentioned in the Chart at para-6
above.
49) It was submitted that A-11 had served out his sentence
and has since been released after about 71/2 years.
50) It was submitted that though there is no oral evidence
against A-11, but as his name was mentioned in some of the e-
mails Ext.115/51, Ext.115/72, Ext.115/178, and Ext.115/705, and
Ext.115/714, he was convicted. It was submitted that Ext.115/714
is not available in the paper-book.
51) The submissions on non-admissibility of the e-mails in
evidence have been reiterated herein, which is not replicated
herein. Once again, the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (ibid.) was
cited.
52) It was submitted that in the charge-sheet the name of the
appellant is Sinam Gune Singh @ Boy @ Wanglen @ Little Boy,
and the same name also appears in the form of charge explained
Page 36 of 261
to the appellant by the learned Trial Court. But in Ext.5, proved by
PW-5, in the column under heading "Lt. Col.", at serial no.5, the
name of person arrayed as A-11 is mentioned as Lt. Col. Sinam
Wanglen @ Guneshwar.
53) Accordingly, it has been submitted that as the identity of
the appellant was not proved and established by the prosecution,
this was a case of prosecution under mistaken identity.
54) By referring to the evidence of M. Baskar (PW-5), it was
submitted that the list of officers (five sheets) as well as the
attachments to the e-mail (Ext.5 series) were proved without any
certificate as required under section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act,
1872. By referring to one of the two documents marked as
Ext.18(7), it was submitted that the said page contains three
photographs and the document is a print-out of the Officers of
UNLF, which contains the photograph in the name of Lt. Col. Sinan
Wanglen @ Guneshwar. It was submitted that the sample
photograph with which the three photographs (Ext.18/7) was
compared, was not exhibited.
55) Moreover, it was submitted that the photographs were
not taken on the strength of the order passed by any Magistrate.
It was also submitted that A-11 was not examined under section
313 CrPC on his alleged downloaded photographs or his compared
photographs.
56) It was submitted that in paragraphs 83, 85, 96, 97 and 98
Page 37 of 261
of the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has made
discussion regarding the appellant (A-11), which would show that
the conviction was based on e-mails allegedly retrieved from e-
mails of A-18 and A-19.
57) Hence, it was submitted that the conviction of A-11 was
required to be set aside.
58) It was further submitted that K. Radha Kumar Singh (PW-
75) had exhibited the forwarding letter and NSA dossier in his
evidence. In this regard, it was submitted that a NSA dossier is a
unilateral document of the authorities, which is similar to entries
made in case diary, which is not admissible in evidence. It was
also submitted that perhaps NSA dossier is prepared by the
Executive, which cannot be considered as a proof against A-11. In
this regard the judgment of Haradhan Saha v. The State of West
Bengal & Ors., (1975) 3 SCC 198 (para-19) was cited to show the
purpose of passing detention order under NSA.
(iii) Crl. A. No. 264/2016 - Oinam Maniton Singha (A-15):
59) It was submitted that the A-15 was charged of
committing offence punishable under section 20 of UA(P)A, but
there is no oral evidence against him, but only because his name
appears in some e-mails, disclosed by the accused nos. 18 and 19,
the appellant was convicted.
60) Hence, it was submitted that the conviction of A-15 was
required to be set aside.
Page 38 of 261
(iv) Crl. A. No. 265/2016- W. Noren Singh @ W. Noren
Meetei (A-8):
61) Wayembam Noren Singh @ W. Noren Meetei (A-8) was
convicted for committing offence punishable under section 20 and
18 of UA(P)A and 121A IPC.
62) It was submitted that no oral evidence was led in respect
of the appellant and he was convicted only on the strength of his
name appearing in some e-mails. By referring to the evidence of
M. Baskar (PW-5), it was submitted that the list of officers (five
sheets) as well as the attachments to the e-mail were proved
without any certificate as required under section 65B(4) of the
Evidence Act, 1872. Referring to Ext.5/2 to Ext.5/6, which is a
print-out of an e-mail purportedly containing a list of Officers of
UNLF with photographs including one in the name of Maj.
Wahengbam Toiba at serial no.8. It was also submitted that the
sample photographs with which the photograph at e-mail was
compared was not proved. It was also submitted that usually
specimen signature of a concerned party is taken before a
Magistrate and then sent for forensic examination of the
questioned document, but in this case the said procedure was not
followed.
63) It was submitted that in the charge sheet, the name of A-
4 is mentioned as "Wayenbam Noren Singh @ Toiba", but the said
name does not tally with the list of officers downloaded and
proved by the prosecution witnesses as Ext.5 series. Moreover, it
Page 39 of 261
was submitted that the appellant was not examined under S.313
CrPC on his alleged photograph.
64) Hence, it was submitted that the conviction of A-8 was
required to be set aside.
(v) Crl. App. 291/2016 - Y. Brajabridhu Singh (A-24):
65) Y. Brajabridhu Singh (A-24), the appellant in Crl. Appeal
No. 291/2016 was the Executive Member of AEGIS. He has been
convicted for committing offence punishable under section 20 of
UA(P)A and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term of 7
years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence. He
was also convicted for committing offence punishable under
section 21 of UA(P)A and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
a term of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- with default
sentence. The sentence of imprisonment was to run concurrently.
It was submitted that the conviction of A-24 under section 20 of
UA(P)A was only on the basis of e-mails and there is no oral
evidence against him. Moreover, it was submitted that the
conviction under section 21 of the UA(P) A was on the basis of
surmises and conjectures alone.
66) It was submitted that the main charge appears to be
against AEGIS as it was alleged that AEGIS was a front company
administered by UNLF. In the said context, it was submitted that
A-24 was only an employee of AEGIS and the said society is
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It was
Page 40 of 261
further submitted that the State of Manipur had enacted Manipur
Societies Registration Act, 1989 and thus, AEGIS, which was
registered in the year 1985, is deemed to have been registered
under the said Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989. By
referring to the Rules and Regulation of the Society, it was
submitted that under clause-19 thereof, the affairs of AEGIS is
under the control of the Governing Body/ Managing Committee
and all powers as well as properitorial rights vested in the
Governing Body. It was submitted that though the prosecution
was aware that AEGIS was a registered Society, but for the
reasons not proved by the prosecution, AEGIS, the employer of A-
24 was not prosecuted.
67) It was submitted that it is not the allegation against A-24
that in his personal capacity he is anyway involved in the activities
of UNLF and therefore, there was no iota of evidence against A-24.
68) It was submitted that investigation was done in the basis
of documents collected from the Imphal Urban Cooperative Bank
(IUCB for short) and Chartered Accountant of AEGIS. However,
from the documents collected from them, the prosecution could
not prove that either AEGIS or A-24 was involved in any unlawful
and/or terrorist activity. In this regard reference had been made to
sanction letters (Ext.48, Ext.49 and Ext.51). By referring to Ext.50,
Ext.51(series), Ext.52 (series), Ext.53 (series), Ext.54 (series),
Ext.55 (series) and Ext.56 (series), it was submitted that the
documents disclose that loan of Rs.50.00 lakh was taken by AEGIS
Page 41 of 261
against fixed deposit of Rs.65.00 lakh as security to the Bank and
the loan was returned within 14 days by liquidating the fixed
deposits. In this regard, the evidence of Rakesh Kumar Jain (PW-
24) was referred to. It was submitted that the learned Trial Court
had misread and misconstrued the evidence of Rakesh Kumar Jain
(PW-24) and had given an erroneous finding to the effect that A-
24 was involved with UNLF without considering the evidence on
record that the loan obtained by AEGIS was repaid by liquidating
the fixed deposit of the said society. It was also submitted that the
said PW-24 had stated that "some of the contributions were not
supported by proper documents", but, in paragraph 54 of the
impugned judgment, those words were as misread and
misconstrued and wrongly mentioned to the effect that "large
amount of contributions were not supported by documents and he
found several other anomalies". By referring to Utilisation
Certificate issued by the PW-24, it was submitted that the said
certificate discloses that funds were received by AEGIS from the
Government. Accordingly, it was submitted that a presumption has
to be drawn that the State Govt. and the Union Govt. never
considered AEGIS to be an unlawful organisation.
69) By referring to the Disclosure Statement of R.K. Meghen
(A-19) (Ext.166), it was submitted that from the said document it
is clear that 1 (one) out of 3 (three) e-mail addresses could not be
opened. Certain print-outs were taken out from the e-mail address
of [email protected], but those e-mail print-outs were
not proved in accordance with law. It was submitted that on a
Page 42 of 261
flimsy ground that the witnesses were getting late, e-mails were
downloaded in the computer and then transferred to a sterile hard
disk, which was sent to Chandigarh. It was submitted that the e-
mails exhibited as Ext.190 to Ext.195 were proved by D.P.
Gangwar (PW-44). The other e-mails were printed at Chandigarh.
70) It was submitted that Siba Prasad Mohanty (PW-74) had
exhibited certificate (Ext.168) under section 65B of the Evidence
Act, but the said certificate only certifies the downloading and
does not certify the process of its print-out. It was also submitted
that the hard disk data was downloaded in a DVD-R and the print-
outs were made from the DVD-R, but there is no certificate either
for the contents of the DVD-R or in respect of the print-outs.
Accordingly, it was submitted that the documents exhibited by N.
Baskar (PW-5) were without any certificate under section 65B(4)
of the Evidence Act and were copies of secondary evidence, which
was not admissible in evidence.
71) Evidence of B. Haridas Sarma (PW-43) was read and it
was submitted that his evidence was insufficient to convict the
appellant.
72) It was submitted that AK Ibochouba Singh (PW-23) had
stated that loan was taken by the AEGIS and returned, which was
misinterpreted in paragraph 54 of the judgment by holding to the
effect that "the said witness had further stated that large amount
of the contributions were not supported by documents and he
found several other anomalies."
Page 43 of 261
73) Hence, it was submitted that the conviction of A-24 was
required to be set aside.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the remaining
appellants:
(vi) Crl. A. 165/2016 - Landhoni Devi (A-14):
74) Mrs. Landhoni Devi (A-14) is the wife of Khwairakpam
Jeeten Singh (A-10). It may be mentioned that the name of
Khwairakpam Jeeten Singh is also mentioned in some places as
Jeeten Singh and Kh. Jeeten Singh. He has been convicted for
committing offence punishable under section 20 of UA(P)A and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years with fine of
Rs.10,000/- with default sentence in the event of non-payment.
75) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the said
appellant that although Phanidhar Das (PW-15) had stated that
Jeeten (A-10) had stayed in his rented house, but during
examination of A-14 under section 313 CrPC, he was not examined
on that part of the evidence of PW-15. It was submitted that the
only material against A-14 was that she was residing at a rented
accommodation with Jeeten (A-10) by concealing their identity. In
his examination-in-chief, Phanidhar Das (PW-15) had stated that
Jeeten (A-10) told him that he would stay with his wife also. Thus,
it was submitted that there was no incriminating material against
A-14 in the evidence of Phanidhar Das (PW-15).
76) By referring to the evidence of M.C. Arun (PW-17), it was
Page 44 of 261
submitted that in his examination-in-chief, he had stated that his
younger sister i.e. A-14 had eloped with Jeeten (A-10), a UNLF
member and that except for that statement by PW-17, there is no
other corroborative evidence to prove that A-14 was a member of
UNLF.
77) Hence, it was submitted that the conviction of A-14 was
required to be set aside.
(vii) Crl.A.289/2016 - Oinam Samarjit Singh @ Naresh @
Kadeng (A-7):
78) Oinam Samarjit Singh @ Naresh @ Kadeng (A-7) was
convicted for committing offence punishable under sections 18 and
20 of UA(P)A as well as under section 121A IPC. His sentence is
morefully referred in the chart appended to para-6 above. It was
submitted that he has served out his sentence by undergoing
imprisonment of nearly 7½ years and has since been set at liberty.
79) It was submitted that Indubhusan Kongkham (PW-7) had
stated in his evidence-in-chief that A-7 had told him that he had
become a member of UNLF and he had asked PW-7 to join UNLF.
However, it was submitted that A-7 was not examined under
Section 313 CrPC on that piece of evidence. It was submitted that
the travel of A-7 to China, Nepal and Bangkok was not proved by
the prosecution. The passport of A-7 was not seized and no
documentary evidence was proved by any prosecution witnesses
that A-7 had travelled to these three Countries with an intention to
Page 45 of 261
procure arms, ammunitions, etc. It was submitted that
Indubhusan Kongkham (PW-7) had exhibited a photograph of A-7
at Kathmandu, which does not prove that A-7 had committed any
offence or that he was a member of UNLF. As per the statement of
Indubhusan Kongkham (PW-7) in his examination-in-chief, he had
met Nongyai (A-18) in the lobby of a hotel, who introduced PW-7
to Mr. Lancha, Mr. Thabal (A-20) and Mr. Sakhen. PW-7 was asked
to have tea at the lobby. He had further stated that all of them
went together to an adjoining room of the lobby and after having
tea and waiting for 30 minutes, PW-7 went towards the room
where they were talking and opened the door a little bit but did
not enter. PW-7 had stated that all of them were in confusion and
were shouting at one another and they were talking in English
about purchase of AK-47, RPG, M-21 and about military training of
UNLF cadre at China. It was submitted that the said PW-7 had not
proved the date and time; name and address of hotel where he
had heard all persons including A-18, A-20 shouting about
purchase of arms and for giving training to UNLF cadre at China.
The PW-7 had also not stated that name of the hotel, room
number and address of hotel where he was staying. Thus, the
learned counsel for A-7 has submitted that PW-7 was a peeping
tom, whose evidence is devoid of any credibility.
80) By referring to the answer of A-7 in respect of question
no. 18 during examination of A-7 under section 313 CrPC, which
was based on the evidence of PW-75, it was submitted that the A-
7 had answered that the detention order against him was
Page 46 of 261
dismissed by the Advisory Board.
81) By referring to Seizure Memo (Ext.32 series), it was
submitted that the said documents relating to travel of PW-7.
However, it was submitted that no travel document relating to A-7
was called or proved. By referring to the finding of the learned
Trial Court in paragraph 62 of the impugned judgment, it was
submitted that in his evidence Indubhusan Kongkham (PW-7) had
stated that in the year 2008, he had gone to China and met Ms.
Cheng, General Manager of Chengdu Source Management
Consultants Company Ltd. PW-7 had also stated that in the later
part of the year 2008, he had met his friend Oinam Samarjit Singh
(A-7) at Guwahati, who had introduced him to Dilip Singh @ Mani
(A-16) and discussed about sending students to China. PW-7 had
also stated that in Kathmandu, he had met Mr. Chen @ Alex and
he had also met M. Joy Singh @ Nongyai (A-18) and Thabal (A-
20), but he had not uttered the name of A-7. Hence, it was
submitted that the evidence of the I.O. (PW-80) cannot be said to
be reliable.
82) It was also submitted that there was no iota of evidence
that PW-7 was accompanied by A-7. It was submitted that PW-7 is
one of the star witness for proving the theory of conspiracy under
Section 121(A) IPC. It was submitted that it is preposterous that
PW-7 was able to open a hotel room from the corridor outside that
hotel room and he had overheard two persons including A-18 and
A-20 shouting at each other regarding purchase of AK-47, RPG, M-
Page 47 of 261
21 and also about military training of UNLF cadres in China.
However, it was submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove
(a) the entry of A-16, A-18 and A-20 into China, (b) the name and
address of the hotel and relevant room numbers, as well as (c) the
date and time when PW-7 had over-heard A-18 and A-20.
Therefore, it was submitted that no offence relating to any
conspiracy whatsoever involving A-7 was even remotely made out.
83) It was submitted that as per para-86 of the impugned
judgment, A-7 was acquitted of committing offence punishable
under section 120B IPC. Hence, it was submitted that as the
allegation of conspiracy under section 120B IPC could not be
proved, the allegation of conspiracy would also stand disproved in
respect of alleged offence under section 20 UA(P)A and for offence
under section 121A IPC.
84) Hence, it was submitted that the conviction of A-7 was
required to be set aside.
(viii) Crl.A. 113/2017- Ningombam Dilip Singh @ Ibochou
@ Mani (A-16):
85) A-16 was convicted for committing offence under section
18 of the UA(P)A and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 8
years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. He
was also convicted for committing offence punishable under
section 20 of the UA(P)A and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. He was
Page 48 of 261
also convicted for committing offence punishable under section
121A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a
term of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The sentence of
fine was with a default stipulation.
86) It was submitted that A-16 had served out sentence of
about 71/2 years and has since been released.
87) By referring to the examination of A-16 under section 313
CrPC., it was submitted that A-16 was not examined on the point
as to whether he had gone to China. It was submitted that except
for the oral evidence of PW-7 and e-mails (Ext.115), which were
not proved in accordance with law, there is no adverse evidence
against A-16.
88) Hence, it was submitted that the conviction of A-16 was
liable to be set aside.
(ix) Crl.A. 115/2017 - Khwairakpam Jeeten Singh @
Khomba @ Dene (A-10):
89) It was submitted that Khwairakpam Jeeten Singh @
Khomba @ Dene (A-10) was convicted for committing offence
punishable under section 17 of the UA(P)A and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine. He was also
convicted for committing offence punishable under section 18 of
the UA(P)A and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. He was also
convicted for committing offence punishable under section 20 of
Page 49 of 261
the UA(P)A and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7
years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. He was also convicted for
committing offence punishable under section 121A of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The sentence of fine was with default
stipulation.
90) It was submitted that A-10 had served out sentence of
about 71/2 years and has since been released.
91) It was submitted that during trial, the name of A-10 was
mentioned as Kh. Jiten Singh and his name was also spelt as
Khwairakpam Jeeten Singh in some places.
92) It was also submitted that A-10 has served out his
sentence by undergoing imprisonment for about 71/2 years and
has since been set at liberty.
93) It was submitted that the evidence against A-10 was
given by PW nos. 15, 17, 26, 34, 38, 57, 67 and 75. It was
submitted that the learned Trial Court had held in para-85 of the
impugned judgment that there was enough evidence against A-10,
as discussed in paragraphs 27, 46, 56 to 61, 62, 63, 65 and 66 to
prove that A-10 was guilty under section 18 of the UA(P)A and
under section 121A of the IPC. It was further held that
appreciation of evidence, as done in paragraphs 71 to 78 of the
impugned judgment proved beyond all reasonable doubt that A-10
was guilty under section 17 of the UA(P)A.
Page 50 of 261
94) In this regard, it was submitted that on conjoint reading
of the examination-in-chief of the said witnesses and their cross-
examination would show that the learned Trial Court had misread
and misconstrued the evidence of the PWs.
95) It was submitted that M.C. Arun (PW-17) had stated in his
examination-in-chief that his sister Landhoni Devi (A-14) had
eloped with Jeeten Singh (A-10), a member of UNLF.
96) It was submitted that L. Momon Singh (PW-34), SI of
Police had stated in his examination-in- chief that Khwairakpam
Jiten @ Khomba Singh (A-10) and two others were arrested in
connection with FIR dated 27.05.1996, being Heingang Police
Station Case No. 63(5)/96, under sections 121/121A IPC and
section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, and section 13 of UA(P)A.
However, in his cross-examination the said PW-34 had stated that
he had no idea whether the charge-sheet was submitted against
A-10 before the Trial Court or not and he had also stated that he
did not know about the identity of the accused persons. He had
also stated that he had no idea whether any case is pending
against him or not
97) By referring to the evidence of Laitonjam Rupa Singh
(PW-26), it was submitted that he had only stated that he did not
pay any money to Indramoni, but he and one Jiten belonging to
UNLF had collected money from nominee. For the transport of
rice. It was submitted that PW-26 did not identify A-10. PW-26
had also stated that Jiten forced him to deposit money collected
Page 51 of 261
from nominee in his bank account amounting to Rs.40/50 lakh. On
receiving phone call from UNLF, he had handed over the money to
Ranjit by cheque. PW-26 had also stated that he can identify
Ranjit and Jiten, but he had not seen them in Court.
98) Referring to examination of A-10 under Section 313 CrPC,
it was submitted that A-10 was not asked any question with regard
to his identity. It was also submitted that question no.10 is related
to the evidence of PW-17 to the effect that Jeeten (A-10) was a
member of UNLF. However, under section 313 CrPC., A-10 was not
examined on that point. Hence, it was submitted that the said
statement of PW-17 cannot be relied upon by the prosecution. It
was also submitted that the evidence of O. Ibomcha Singh (PW-
57) also does not implicate A-10.
99) It was submitted that on 29.08.2013, Kh. Jeeten Singh
(A-10) was present in the Trial Court and Laitonjam Rupa Singh
(PW-26) was examined by the prosecution on the said date.
However, in his deposition, PW-26 had stated that he did not see
Jeeten in Court. Therefore, it was submitted that in this case
Jeeten (A-10) was not the accused, but it was someone else.
100) It was submitted that during his examination under
section 313 CrPC., A-10 was asked question no.13, which was
based on the evidence of Laitonjam Rupa Singh (PW-26).
However, he said witness did not identify A-10 in the dock, his
evidence cannot implicate A-10. In continuation to the issue
relating to identification of A-10, the learned counsel for the said
Page 52 of 261
accused had referred to that part of the evidence of O. Ibomcha
Singh (PW-57), where he had referred to another person named
Th. Jiten Singh. Hence, it was submitted that the prosecution had
failed to prove that A-10 was the alleged accused in this case.
101) It was submitted that while examining A-10 under section
313 CrPC., he was put question no. 10, which was based on the
evidence of M.C. Arun (PW-17), but the learned Trial Court did not
refer to that part of evidence of PW-17 wherein he had stated that
his sister had eloped with Jeeten, a member of UNLF. Hence, it
was submitted that the appellant could not have been held guilty
of having membership of UNLF on the basis of oral evidence of
PW-17.
102) Hence, it was submitted that the conviction of A-10 was
required to be set aside.
(x) Crl.A. 145/2017 - Mutum Ibohal Singh @ Ngamba @
Sanjay (A-12):
103) Mutum Ibohal Singh @ Ngamba @ Sanjay (A-12) was
convicted for committing offence punishable under sections 18 and
20 of the UA(P)A and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for 8 years and 7 years respectively and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- each for both the offence. He was also convicted for
committing offence punishable under section 121A of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term of 10 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The fine was with default stipulation.
Page 53 of 261
104) It was submitted that A-12 had served about 7½ years of
sentence and had since been released. He was arrested on
19.08.2010 in connection with Noonmati PS case no.159/2010
along with other co-accused.
105) It was submitted that the prosecution has relied on
evidence of Satheesh Chand (PW-53) and Siba Prasad Mohanty
(PW-74), who had retrieved the e-mail on disclosure by M. Joy
Singh (A-18) and R.K. Meghen (A-19). D.P. Gangwar (PW-44) had
compared the photograph downloaded from e-mail (Ext.115) with
the sample photograph of A-12. It was submitted that except for
the e-mails, which was not proved in accordance with law, there is
no other incriminating material against A-12. It was submitted that
the e-mails exhibited by the prosecution were not admissible as
the said e-mail was not supported by a certificate as required
under section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872. By referring to the
e-mails (Ext.5 series), it was submitted that the name Maj. Mutum
Ngamba @ Iboham appears at serial no.7, which is not the name
in which A-12 was tried. By further referring to FSL report
(Ext.204), and the photograph examination report dated
30.09.2011 of Maj. Mutum Ngamba @ Iboham, being document
Q.2 before FSL, it was submitted that the sample photographs
were not exhibited and in this connection. Hence, it was submitted
that the conviction of A-12 was required to be set aside. Be it
stated that in the list of Major (Ext.5/2), the name of A-12 is spelt
as "Mutum Ngamba @ Ibohal" and not as "Mutum Iboham @
Ngamba @ Sanjay", the name against which charge-sheet was
Page 54 of 261
submitted and/or the name of accused to whom charges were
read over and explained.
(xi) Crl.A. No. 299/2016- Laurenbum Jatishor Singh @
Tilemba (A-17):
106) Laurenbum Jatishor Singh @ Tilemba (A-17) was
convicted for committing offence punishable under sections 20 and
18 of UA(P)A and under section 121A of the IPC and he was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 (seven) years, 8 (eight)
years and 10 (ten) years respectively and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- each, with default stipulation.
107) It was submitted that A-17 has been released after
serving sentence of about 7½ years. He was arrested in
connection with Noonmati PS case no.159/2010 along with other
co-accused.
108) It was submitted that A-17 was convicted on the basis of
evidence of PW nos.17, 44, 53 and 74. In respect of A-17, the
submissions made by the learned counsel in respect of A-12 were
reiterated.
109) It was submitted that the prosecution had examined Smti.
Laurembam Ibeyaima (PW-72). The said witness is the wife of A-
17 and she did not give any incriminating evidence against A-17.
Accordingly, it was submitted that this was a case of no adverse
evidence against A-17, and that he was convicted and sentenced
on the basis of surmises and conjectures.
Page 55 of 261
110) Hence, it was submitted that the conviction of A-17 was
required to be set aside.
(xii) Crl. A. No. 295/2016 - A. Ibomcha (A-25):
111) A. Ibomcha @ A. Ibomcha Singh (A-25) was convicted
under sections 20 and 21 of UA(P)A. Under section 20 of the
UA(P)A, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. Under
section 21 of the UA(P)A, he was sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with
default stipulation.
112) It has been submitted that A-25 has since been released
after serving his sentence.
113) A-25 was arrested in connection with Noonmati PS case
no.159/2010 along with other co-accused.
114) It was submitted that in para-83 of the judgment, the
learned Trial Court had held A-24 guilty twice under section 20 of
the UA(P)A. However, in the judgment, there is no finding that A-
25 was guilty of committing offence under section 20 of the
UA(P)A. Accordingly, it was submitted that A-25 cannot be said to
have been convicted under section 20 of the UA(P)A. It was
submitted that this appeal has been filed as a measure of
abundant caution because the respondents may take a plea that
non-referring to A-25 in para 83 of the impugned judgment was
an inadvertent error. In the said context, it was submitted that the
Page 56 of 261
respondents have not filed any cross-appeal for convicting A-25
under section 20 of UA(P)A.
115) By referring to the photograph no.4 (Ext.18/5), it was
submitted that A-9, Maj. Maibam Chareal was convicted only under
section 20 UA(P)A and not under section 18 UA(P)A and 121 IPC.
It is submitted that though A-25 was similarly situated, yet he was
convicted under sections 20 and 21 of UA(P)A. It was submitted
that there was a clear finding at para-84 of the impugned
judgment that there was no terrorist act and that it applied to A-5
to A-19 as none of them were held guilty of committing any
terrorist act.
116) It was submitted that after evaluating the evidence of Ak.
Ibochouba Singh (PW-23), retired General Manager, IUCB and Ng.
Robert (PW-39), the learned Trial Court did not find that any fund
was received by AEGIS through any terrorist act. Moreover,
though Ng. Robert (PW-39) claimed that money was demanded
from his firm, but he did not give any evidence as to whom did he
pay any sum of money. It was submitted that in his cross-
examination PW-39 could not say that any member of UNLF had
collected any money. Accordingly, it was submitted that the
learned trial Court had convicted A-25 on the basis of presumption
and conjectures alone.
117) By referring to evidence of Ak. Ibochouba Singh (PW-23),
it was submitted that AEGIS had taken loan from IUCB, which was
returned within 14 days, which is permitted by the RBI and
Page 57 of 261
therefore, repayment before the due date cannot be said to be
illegal. It was submitted that there was no evidence before the
learned Trial Court from which it could have drawn adverse
inference against A-25. By referring to the cross-examination of
PW-23, it was submitted that the said witness had admitted that
the A-25 was a renowned businessman.
118) By referring to the evidence of Rakesh Kumar Jain (PW-
24), it was submitted that the said prosecution witness had
admitted in his cross-examination that AEGIS was financed by the
Central Government. Accordingly, it was submitted that there is no
evidence in this case about there being any direction from the
leadership of UNLF to any appellants herein to commit any
terrorist act.
119) By referring to the evidence of N. Holland Singh (PW-29),
it was submitted that the said witness had merely stated that
AEGIS had taken a loan from IUCB, SFAC, Ministry of Food
Processing Industries. However, there was no statement AEGIS
had obtained any fund from any terrorist act.
120) By referring to the evidence of B. Haridas Sarma (PW-43),
who was an ex-employee of AEGIS, it was submitted that he had
denied in his cross-examination about giving statement that three
persons including the appellant had link with UNLF. It was
submitted that the said evidence was ignored by the learned Trial
Court. By further referring to the evidence of B. Haridas Sarma
(PW-43), it was submitted that he had admitted that he was
Page 58 of 261
briefed by NIA officials about the statement given by him before
the Magistrate. Accordingly, it was submitted that at the time
when the statement of PW-43 was recorded under section 164
CrPC, he was a tutored witness and therefore, ought not to have
been relied upon. Moreover, it is submitted that from the evidence
of PW-43, no material was available to incriminate A-25 under
section 20 UA(P)A.
121) It was submitted that Th. Indramani Singh (PW-45) had
disclosed the names of two UNLF members, Mr. Naocha and Mr.
Ratan, but he did not name A-25 to be a UNLF member.
122) By referring to paragraphs 20, 21 and 54 of the impugned
judgment, it was submitted that the observation/ finding of the
learned Trial Court was not supported by any documentary
evidence. It was submitted that merely because the source of
money is not known, the learned Trial Court could not have
presumed that the money was a proceeds of terrorist act. Hence,
it was submitted that the conviction of A-25 was on the basis of
assumption and presumption alone and not even based on grave
suspicion.
123) It was submitted that in para-80 of the impugned
judgment, A-25 was linked with the UNLF only through the e-mails
and disclosure statements made by M. Joy Singh (A-18) and R.K.
Meghen (A-19). It was submitted that for the purpose of non-
admissibility of the e-mails, he relies on the submission made by
the learned senior counsel for some of the appellants. It was also
Page 59 of 261
submitted that in paragraphs 81 and 82 of the impugned
judgment, it was held that Ak. Ibochouba Singh (PW-23), Rakesh
Kumar Jain (PW-24) and Smt. Ambika Sharma (PW-25) had made
incriminating statement against A-25, which is incorrect reading or
misreading of the evidence because there were no incriminating
materials against A-25 in the evidence of PW-23, PW-24 and PW-
25. Thus, it is submitted that A-25 was convicted only on surmises
and conjectures and that the finding of his guilt was based on
presumption of "either" and "or" and not on the basis of cogent
and admissible proof.
124) It was submitted that the attachment order (Ext.94) was
in respect of property of AEGIS, but no notice was issued to
AEGIS.
125) The learned counsel had read the evidence of Protected
Witness X (PW-3) and Protected Witness Y (PW-4) and it was
submitted that no documents were seized by them and that only
on the basis of that their oral testimony the learned Trial Court
had convicted A-25.
126) By referring to para-84 of the impugned judgment, it was
submitted that the learned Trial Court had not held that any
terrorist act was committed by A-25. It was also submitted that
the meeting of mind of A-25 with any UNLF member was not
proved. Hence, it was submitted that A-25 was convicted on the
basis of assumption and presumption and thus, his conviction is
not sustainable.
Page 60 of 261
127) Hence, it was submitted that the conviction of A-25 was
liable to be set aside.
128) The learned senior counsel for the NIA (respondent no.2)
after making general submissions, has advanced his submissions
on individual appeals.
(a) General submissions of the learned senior counsel for
NIA (respondent no.2):
129) It was submitted that UNLF is a terrorist organization so
long its name remains in the First Schedule of the UA(P)A. Hence,
it was submitted that as the prosecution had proved that the
appellants and other co-accused had been associated with UNLF
as its member, the conviction and resulting sentence was
sustainable.
130) It was submitted that A-12 and A-24 had jumped bail
and were declared as absconders. A-21 and 22 were also
absconders. A-6, A-14 and A-15 were on bail during trial. A-5, A-7-
13, 16 to 19 and 24-25 were in custody during their trial.
131) It was submitted that rest of the accused except R.K.
Meghen (A-19) were arrested at Guwahati in connection with
Noonmati PS case no.195/2010, which was registered by
Someswar Dutta (PW-33), S.I. of Police, under sections 120B,
121A, 122, 468 IPC and section 10 and 13 of UA(P)A. It was
submitted that R.K. Meghen (A-19) was arrested at Motihari, Bihar
while he was coming into India from Nepal.
Page 61 of 261
132) By referring to the evidence of PW nos. 2, 6, 8, 10, 12,
13, 15 and 21, it was submitted that the said witnesses were the
owners of houses where some of the accused arrested at
Guwahati were residing and that they had deposed that the
accused persons named by them were residing in their houses. It
was submitted that the evidence of Protected Witness X (PW-3)
and Protected Witness Y (PW-4) was only to show that UNLF is a
terrorist organization. The statement of R.K. Meghen (A-19) given
during sentence hearing was read and it was submitted that the
said statement amounted to admission by A-19 that he was a
revolutionary and was waging war against India.
133) By citing the judgment of Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India,
MANU/ SC/1000/2021, it was submitted that to be a member of a
terrorist organization, punishment prescribed under section 20 of
the UA(P)A is imprisonment for life. Relying on the case of Arup
Bhuyan v. State of Assam, (2015) 12 SCC 702, it was submitted
that the said decision was referred to a larger Bench.
(b) Submissions in connection with Crl. A. No. 262/2016 -
Sougaijam Rakesh Singh (A-6):
134) By Referring to evidence of Nongthombam Premchand
(PW-9), it was submitted by the learned senior counsel for the
respondent no.2 that link of S. Rakesh Singh (A-6) was established
with the Chairman, UNLF, namely, R.K. Meghen (A-19). It was
submitted that the evidence of PW-9 against A-6 was not
demolished during his cross-examination.
Page 62 of 261
135) The case of NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5
SCC 1, was cited on the point that section 34 of the Evidence Act
had no applicability in the business of crime.
136) By referring to the evidence of Ng. Robert Singh (PW-39),
it was submitted that the said witness had clearly deposed about
extortion by UNLF and other terrorist organizations. It is submitted
that S. Rakesh Singh (A-6) was only an advisor to two Students
Unions i.e. AMSU and MEMSU, but he has invested a sum of
Rs.1.10 Crore in the business of PW-39 and that after settlement
of accounts, a sum of Rs.17.00 lakh was found payable by PW-39
to A-6, which was seized by NIA. It was submitted that A-6 did not
deny that Rs.17.00 lakh that was seized from PW-39 was not his
money and he had also not denied that said money was not the
proceeds of extortion or terrorist act.
137) By referring to evidence of K. Krishna Kumar Singh (PW-
63), it was submitted that he was a partner of Ng. Robert Singh
(PW-39) and he had also stated that UNLF was involved in
extortion, killing etc.
138) The examination of A-6 under section 313 CrPC was read,
specifically Q.12 and Q.21. By referring to paragraphs 65 and 66
of the impugned judgment, it was submitted that the learned Trial
Court had held that A-6, A-19 and A-20 were proved to be
members of UNLF and in the process the link of A-6 was also
established with the UNLF, which is a terrorist organization.
Page 63 of 261
139) By referring to paragraphs 66, 78 and 83 of the impugned
judgment, it was submitted that the learned Trial Court had
correctly appreciated the evidence and therefore, no interference
is called for against conviction of A-6.
(c) Submissions in Crl. A. No. 289/2016 - O. Samarjit Singh
@ Naresh @ Kadeng (A-7):
140) It was submitted that oral evidence of Indubhusan
Kongkham (PW-7) was sufficient to convict A-7. It was submitted
that although A-7 was not in China, but he was fully aware of what
was going on in China and he had called PW-7 and confronted him
for leaving China without informing his associates. The said when
Indubhusan Kongkham (PW-7) was in China, he had heard the
UNLF cadres talking about purchasing arms like AK-47, RPG, etc.
In the said context, it was submitted that the said part of the
evidence of PW-7 could not be demolished in his cross-
examination. The various e-mails were referred to.
141) It was submitted that with regard to the question nos. 5
to 8, 20, 29 and 33 of examination of A-7 under section 313 CrPC,
A-7 had denied the same by giving his answer as "it is false"; "I
am not aware"; "I have no idea". Accordingly, it was submitted
that as the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that A-7 was at China as alleged and that he had
participated in any terrorist act whatsoever, the explanation of A-7
was required to be given weightage.
Page 64 of 261
142) By referring to paragraphs 62 to 66 of the impugned
judgment, it was submitted that the learned Trial Court had found
the evidence of Indubhusan Kongkham (PW-7) to be truthful and
his evidence could not be discredited in his cross-examination.
Hence, it was submitted that charge against A-7 was proved.
143) It was submitted that no interference was called for
against conviction of A-7.
(d) Submissions in Crl. A. No. 113/2017 - N. @ Ibochou @
Mani Singh (A-16):
144) It was submitted that oral evidence of Indubhusan
Kongkham (PW-7) was sufficient to incriminate and convict the A-
16 because his link to R.K. Meghen (A-19), the Chairman of UNLF
was established as A-16 had met A-19 at Kathmandu, Nepal. The
said PW-7 had also proved that A-16 had told him that he had
joined UNLF and had also invited him to join UNLF. Accordingly, it
was submitted that link of A-16 on the basis of evidence of PW-7
was established with A-7, A-18 and A-19 and their membership of
UNLF was also established.
145) The evidence of Satheesh Chand (PW-53) was relied and
it was submitted that e-mails (Ext.115) were duly proved.
146) The learned senior standing counsel for NIA had referred
to the Disclosure Statement by A-18 (Ext.111) to show that A-18
and A-19 were respectively the Secretary and Chairman of UNLF.
It was submitted that all the 2781 e-mails were downloaded by A-
Page 65 of 261
19. It was submitted that only those relevant e-mails, which were
necessary, were translated by NIA to English. It was submitted
that the e-mails were supported by a certificate (Ext.114) issued
by Satheesh Chand (PW-53) under section 65B of the Evidence
Act, 1872. Reference was also made to the Recovery Memo
(Ext.113) and the e-mails (Ext.115) series.
147) The decision of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court of
India in the case of Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, MANU/SC/
0294/2023 (para-18) was cited and it was submitted that a mere
membership of a terrorist organisation would also entail
punishment.
148) It was submitted that the defence ought to set up his/her
case while cross-examining the prosecution witness. In this regard,
the case of AIR 1961 Cal 359 was cited. It was submitted that
although the said case related to testamentary suit, but the said
principle was accepted by Supreme Court of India in the case of
Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 1 SCC 240 (para-10). It
was submitted that as per the case of Sarwan Singh (supra), in
TADA cases, the principle of preponderance of evidence is
acceptable and accordingly, it was submitted that in the cases
registered under various provisions of UA(P)A, conviction was
permissible by applying the principle of preponderance of
evidence.
149) It was submitted that oral evidence of Indubhusan
Kongkham (PW-7) was direct as he was told by A-7 that he had
Page 66 of 261
joined UNLF and he was also invited to join UNLF. His evidence
also disclosed that he had met A-16 in Kathmandu, who arranged
meeting of A-7 with RK Meghen (A-19).
150) It was submitted that the case of A-16 was decided in
paragraphs 62 and 63 of the impugned judgment. It was also
submitted that the relevant questions put to A-16 during his
examination under section 313 CrPC were Q. nos. 4, 9, 13, 14 and
15 and it was submitted that A-16 did not make any attempt to
explain the circumstances appearing against him when he got an
opportunity during his examination under section 313 CrPC
151) It was submitted that no interference was called for
against conviction of A-16.
Submissions in Crl. A. No. 115/2017 - Khwairakpam
Jeeten Singh @ Khomba @ Dene A-10:
152) It was submitted that oral evidence of PW-17 was
sufficient to prove that Khwairakpam Jeeten Singh @ Khombo @
Dene (A-10) was a member of UNLF and to prove that he had
committed offence punishable under sections 18 and 20 of UA(P)A
and sections 121A of the IPC.
153) It was submitted that M.C. Arun (PW-17) had stated in
his examination-in-chief that his younger sister Landhoni Devi (A-
14) had eloped with Jeeten (A-10), a member of UNLF. The said
witness was not cross-examined on his said evidence.
154) Evidence of Laitonjam Rupa Singh (PW-26), L. Momon
Page 67 of 261
Singh (PW-34), O. Ibomcha Singh (PW-57) and Maibam Rameswar
Singh (PW-67) were read.
155) It was submitted that the learned Trial Court had
explained charge under section 20 of UA(P)A to A-10. It was also
submitted that as per the list of officers (Ext.5/2), A-10 was a
UNLF officer of the rank of Colonel, which proved that A-10
belonged to armed cadre of UNLF, a terrorist organisation and in
this regard, the photo of A-10, which is available in a page
exhibited as Ext.18/9 at Sl. No.74 thereof was referred to. It was
submitted that during his examination under section 313 CrPC,
relevant questions on which A-10 was examined are Q. nos. 13,
15, 16, 21, 30, 37, 39 and 41. It was submitted that the relevant
paragraphs in the impugned judgment against A-10 are at
paragraphs 46, 47 and 76.
156) It was submitted that by a certificate (Ext.185), exhibited
by Surinder Singh Bakshi (PW-79), the Protected Witness No. 80
had certified that 88 e-mails in 1008 sheets in Meitei (Manipuri),
provided to him by Surinder Singh Bakshi (PW-79), DSP, NIA on
04.02.2011 along with index with corresponding attachment were
found correctly translated in English. It was submitted that the
said certificate (Ext.185) was admitted in evidence without any
objection. In this regard, reliance was placed on the case of Sonu
@ Amar v. State of Haryana, (2017) 8 SCC 570 (para-26), and
Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 277 (para-6).
157) It was submitted that oral evidence of PWs was sufficient
Page 68 of 261
to prove that A-10 was a member of UNLF. Hence, it was
submitted that no interference was called for against conviction of
A-10.
Submissions in Crl.A. 291/2016 - Y. Brajabridhu Singh (A-
24) and Crl.A. 295/2016 - A. Ibomcha (A-25):
158) It was submitted that both A-24 and A-25 were convicted
for committing offence punishable under sections 20 and 21 of
UA(P)A and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years. Same
set of evidence was led in both cases.
159) It was submitted that oral evidence supported by e-mails
(Ext.115) were sufficient evidence before the learned Trial Court to
hold A-24 and A-25 guilty of offence committed under sections 20
and 21 of UA(P)A. It was also submitted that A-24 and A-25 were
both members of AEGIS, which was a front organisation of UNLF
and both the accused were functionaries of AEGIS. It was also
submitted that the accounts of AEGIS were monitored by UNLF
leadership, which can be seen from e-mails (Ext.115 series) which
in turn proved that extorted money of UNLF was routed through
AEGIS. It was submitted that money collected through extortion
was brought to Guwahati and then taken in foreign countries to
purchase arms and ammunitions to wage war on India and those
evidence was sufficient to prove that the appellants were members
of UNLF, a terrorist organisation.
160) By referring to the evidence of Ak. Ibochouba Singh (PW-
Page 69 of 261
23), Rakesh Kumar Jain, Chartered Accountant (PW-24), N.
Holland Singh (PW-29) and B. Haridas Sarma (PW-43), who was
examined as PW-29had incriminated A-24 and A-25.
161) Hence, it was submitted that the conviction of A-24 and
A-25 did not warrant any interference.
Submissions in Crl.A. 165/2016 - Landhoni Devi (A-14):
162) By referring to the evidence of M.C. Arun (PW-17), it was
submitted that he said witness had proved that A-14, who was his
younger sister had eloped with Jeeten (A-10), who was member of
UNLF and he was not cross-examined on the point. The evidence
of Ms. W. Amusana (PW-47), who was declared hostile, was also
read. Accordingly, it was submitted that the conviction and
sentence imposed upon the appellant does not warrant any
interference in this appeal.
163) The evidence of Yumkham Rother, Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Imphal West, who was examined as PW-49 was read to
show that Ms. W. Amusana (PW-47) was produced before him on
19.01.2011, and she had voluntarily given her statement under
section 164 CrPC (Ext.104/1). He had exhibited the certified copy
of the statement as Ext.104, and his signatures as Ext.104/2 and
the signature of PW-47 as Ext.104/3 and Ext.104/4. Similarly, PW-
49 had stated in his examination-in-chief that Sri Kongkham
Indubhusan (PW-7), Laitonjam Rupa Singh (PW-26), Laitonjam
Inao Singh (PW-27) and Ms. W. Amusana (PW-47), were produced
Page 70 of 261
before him and he had recorded their statement under section 164
CrPC as Ext.110, Ext.Ext.108 and Ext.109 respectively.
Accordingly, it was submitted that the said exhibited statements
proved that all the appellants were members of UNLF and were
involved in conspiracy to commit terrorist act.
Submissions in respect of M. Iboham (Crl.A. 145/2017),
Sinam Gune Singh @ S. Gune Singh @ Boy @ Wanglem @
Little Boy (Crl.A. 263/2016) and Laurenbum Jatishor Singh
@ Tilemba (Crl.A. 299/2016):
164) In respect of appellants Mutum Ibohal, also written in
several places as Mutum Ibohal (Crl.A. 145/2017), Sinam Gune
Singh @ S. Gune Singh @ Boy @ Wanglem @ Little Boy (Crl.A.
263/2016) and Laurenbum Jatishor Singh @ Tilemba (Crl.A.
299/2016), it was submitted that they were all arrested at
Guwahati and certain incriminating articles were seized. Moreover,
it is submitted that from the retrieved emails, their complicity and
belonging to armed cadre of UNLF was proved.
165) The learned DSGI, representing the Union of India
(respondent no.1), had submitted as follows:-
Submissions of Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, DSGI:
166) In support of his submissions, the learned DSGI has cited
the case of Sonu @ Amar (supra) and Yuvaraj v. State, (2023) 0
Supreme (Mad) 1800 (DB) (paragraphs 181 to 186).
167) By referring to question no.32 of examination of Sinam
Page 71 of 261
Gune Singh @ S. Gune Singh @ Boy @ Wanglem @ Little Boy (A-
11) under section 313 CrPC, it was submitted that it was brought
to the notice of A-11 about the activities of S. Rakesh Singh (A-6)
pertaining to "Baloon Project", which was found mentioned in e-
mail marked as E-88/86. He was also put to notice incriminating
materials regarding receipt of financial benefits by O. Samarjit
Singh (A-7), W. Noren Singh @ Thoiba (A-8), Mutum Ibohal Singh
(A-12), Mrs. Landhoni Devi (A-14), O. Maniton Singha (A-15), N.
Dilip Singh @ Ibochou @ Mani (A-16), L. Jatishor Singh @ Tilemba
(A-17). He has also submitted that A-11 was also stated about list
of officers of UNLF vide document E-79, which was retrieved from
the e-mail ID of Raj Kumar Meghan @ Sanayaima (A-19), K.
Jeeten Singh @ Khombo @ Dene (A-10), Mutum Ibohal Singh (A-
12), W. Noren Singh @ Thoiba (A-8), L. Jatishor Singh @ Tilemba
(A-17). Apart from several other UNLF members containing 9(nine)
Lt. Colonel, 12 Major, 19 Captain, 18 Lt., 32 2nd Lt. plus 2 JCOs
with a total of 92 cadres of UNLF and that A-92/4 to A-92/19
contained the photographs of UNLF cadres including A-10, A-11,A-
12 and A-17 in combat uniform as located in the e-mail of A-19.
Accordingly, it was submitted that though the photograph of A-11
in combat uniform was proved, A-11 had not denied his
photograph and therefore, the membership of A-11 as armed
cadre of UNLF was proved by the prosecution.
168) As regards the below named appellants whose
photographs in combat uniform were retrieved from the e-mail of
Raj Kumar Meghan @ Sanayaima (A-19), the same submission has
Page 72 of 261
been made in respect of K. Jeeten Singh @ Khombo @ Dene (A-
10), Sinam Gune Singh @ S. Gune Singh @ Boy @ Wanglem @
Little Boy (A-11), Mutum Ibohal Singh (A-12), L. Jatishor Singh @
Tilemba (A-17).
169) By referring to the examination report of DP Gangwar
(PW-44), Senior Scientific Officer-Physics, CFSL, Chandigarh
(Ext.204), it was submitted that the photographs of accused Capt.
Laurembam Telemba @ Jatishwor (A-17) (PU) marked as
photograph Q-1 was found to be matching on examination with his
sample photographs marked as photograph S-1. Similar statement
was made in respect of Maj. Mutum Ngamba @ Ibohal (A-12)
whose Q-2 photograph was matched sample photograph S-2; for
Maj. Wahengbam Thoiba @ Kothil (A-8) whose Q-3 photograph
was found matching with sample photograph S-3;; and Q-6
photograph of Ltd. Col. Khwairakpam Khomba @ Jitan was found
matching with sample photograph S-6 of Kh Jeetan (A-10).
Accordingly, it is submitted that the said appellants had not
questioned their photographs on being confronted in their
examination under Section 313 CrPC.
Submissions of the learned DSGI in Crl. Appeal 283/2916
- Sinam Gune Singh @ S. Gune Singh @ Boy @ Wanglem @
Little Boy (A-11):
170) It was submitted that the case of accused no.11 was
discussed in paragraphs 45, 46 and 47 of the judgment of the
learned Trial Court.
Page 73 of 261
171) It was submitted that vide attachment to Ext.115/714, M.
Baskar (PW-5) had proved that UNLF was providing maintenance
for the families of A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-12 and A-17. Moreover,
it was submitted that the attachment to e-mail (Ext.5) contained
list of officers of UNLF, wherein the names of A-8, A-10, A-11, A-
12 and A-17 appears. It was submitted that vide Ext.115/750 to A-
115/872, it was proved that the top-brass of UNLF were being
provided with information regarding positioning of the Indian
Military in the State of Manipur. Moreover, it was submitted that
Ext.18/2 proved by PW-5 was an attachment containing revenue
collection sheet for the year 2007 of the Department of Finance,
UNLF, disclosing collection of revenue of about Rs.44.00 Crore that
year. It was submitted that Ext.18/7 was the photograph of A-11
and Ext.18/9 was the photograph of A-10. It was submitted that
the said allegations were not denied by A-11
172) By referring to the examination report of DP Gangwar
(PW-44), Senior Scientific Officer-Physics, CFSL, Chandigarh
(Ext.204), it was submitted that the questioned photograph Q-5 of
accused Lt. Col. Sinam Gune Singh (A-11) was found matching
with sample photograph S-5.
173) It was submitted that A-18 and A-19 had not only
voluntarily disclosed their e-mail passwords, but also downloaded
the e-mails. It was also submitted by the learned DSGI and the
learned senior counsel for the NIA (respondent no.2) that M. Joy
Singh (A-18) and R.K. Meghen (A-19), who had downloaded the e-
Page 74 of 261
mails had accepted the judgment had not filed any appeal and are
serving sentence awarded to them. It was submitted that the
print-out of e-mails were exhibited without any objection and
therefore, objection cannot be raised by the accused now in
appeal. Thus, after the e-mails were downloaded, there is no bar
to treat those e-mails as evidence against other co-accused.
Submissions of the learned DSGI in Crl. A. 145/2017 -
Mutum Ibohal Singh @ Ngamba @ Sanjay (A-12):
174) It was submitted that A-12 was convicted for committing
offence under sections 18 and 20 of UA(P)A and section 121A IPC.
He was sentenced for 8 years, 7 years and 10 years respectively.
It was submitted that A-12 had served his sentence and since
been released.
175) It was submitted that Sri M. Baskar (PW-5) had proved
the photograph of A-12, which is at serial no. 127. His photograph
was Ext.18/4. In his re-examination, D.P. Gangwar (PW-44) had
exhibited the photograph comparison report and Q-2 photograph.
It was submitted that A-12 did not dispute his photograph during
trial. Q. nos. 27 and 27 of examination of A-12 under section 313
CrPC read. It was submitted that Ext. E/79 was the list of officers
of UNLF and in reply to question put during his examination under
section 313 CrPC, A-12 had merely relied that he has no idea, but
he had not denied those photographs were not denied.
176) By referring to the examination report of DP Gangwar
Page 75 of 261
(PW-44), Senior Scientific Officer-Physics, CFSL, Chandigarh
(Ext.204), it was submitted that the questioned photograph Q-2 of
accused Maj. Mutum Ngamba @ Ibohal (A-12) was found
matching with sample photograph S-2 of Mutum Ibohal.
177) It was submitted that Ext.145, which was an interim
report by M.C. Kuli, Scientific Officer, Digital Forensic Unit,
Directorate of Forensic Science, Assam, which was exhibited by
Ninendra Narayan Borah (PW-71) referred to documents of UNLF
including its logo and budget with letters, photograph and profile
etc. conclusively proved that Mutum Ibohal Singh @ Ngamba @
Sanjay was an active officer of UNLF and was dealing in the
finance of UNLF was one of the incriminating materials against A-
12. It was submitted that the learned counsel for A-12, in vain,
had made an attempt to create a doubt regarding the name of A-
12, but the discrepancy, if any, about the name of A-12 would not
be fatal in this case because his downloaded photographs were
compared with his sample photograph by D.P. Gangwar (PW-44)
and that the identity of A-12 was never in dispute.
178) It was submitted that the learned Trial Court, in
paragraph 44 of the impugned judgment, had referred to an e-
mail about detention of A-5, A-7, A-11 and A-13 under National
Security Act. It was submitted that Ext.115/176 proved by M.
Baskar (PW-5) was the said e-mail regarding arrest of A-10, A-11,
A-9, A-8, A-12 and A-13 at Guwahati. Moreover, it was submitted
that from Ext.115/1, it was established that the UNLF was
Page 76 of 261
monitoring about the arrest of their officers and cadres. The arrest
of Telemba (A-2) was also being monitored, which can be seen
from Ext.115/73. It was submitted that those e-mails also prove
that the cadre of UNLF were reporting to the R.K. Meghen (A-19),
Chairman of UNLF. It was submitted that in para-49 of the
judgment, the learned Trial Court had held that A-8, A-9, A-10, A-
11, A-12, A-16, A-17, A-18 and A-19 were deeply involved with
UNLF.
Submissions in Crl. A 299/2016 - Laurenbum Jatishor
Singh @ Tilemba (A-17):
179) It was submitted that A-17 was convicted for committing
offence under sections 18 and 20 of UA(P)A and section 121A IPC
and he was sentenced for 8 years, 7 years and 10 years
respectively. It was submitted that he has served his sentence and
been since released.
180) It was submitted that the conviction of A-17 was on the
basis of downloaded e-mails, which were proved by Satheesh
Chand (PW-53).
181) By referring to the evidence of Devinder Singh (PW-62),
it was submitted that he had stated that he had taken over the
investigation on 24.09.2010 for a part. He had sent the
photographs to the FSL. It was also submitted that the FSL report
(Ext.98) was proved by D.P. Gangwar (PW-44). It was submitted
that Devinder Singh (PW-62) had proved the downloaded
Page 77 of 261
photographs as Ext.204, and the sample photographs as Ext.205.
By referring to Ext.115, it was submitted that the said exhibit is a
letter which contains the information about arrest of 11 UNLF
cadres from Guwahati. Accordingly, it was submitted that UNLF
cadres were aware of the arrest of A-17 at Guwahati.
182) The statement of Laurenbum Jatishor Singh @ Tilemba
(A-17) during his examination under section 313 CrPC was read
and submitted that A-17 was put to notice of all the incriminating
materials that was available against him, which were not denied.
Accordingly, it is submitted that it was established and proved that
A-17 was an active officer of UNLF and was involved in the affairs
of UNLF, which included commission of terrorist acts.
183) It was submitted that the finding against A-17 by the
learned Trial Court is at paragraphs 35-37, 43- 47 and 80-103.
Reply by Mr. D.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate against the
submission by the learned counsel for the respondents:
184) The learned senior counsel for the appellants had
submitted that by referring to the provisions of section 20 of the
UA(P)A, learned Senior counsel for NIA had submitted that for
being a member of a terrorist gang or organisation, an accused
can invite punishment for life, and shall also be liable to fine and in
support of the said submission, paragraph nos. 10 and 11 of the
case of Twaha Fasal (supra) was cited. In the said context, the
learned senior counsel for the appellants had also submitted that
Page 78 of 261
he is also relying on same paragraph nos. 10 and 11 of the said
judgment. It was submitted that the word "which" contained in
section 20 of UA(P)A is intended for a terrorist organisation. It was
submitted that the provision of section 20 carried a distinct and
different postulates than as provided under section 38 UA(P)A.
185) By referring to the case of Bashir Ahmed Pannu, MANU/
DE/3241/2014, cited by the learned senior counsel for respondent
no.2, it was submitted that the said decision had not only
demolished the entire case set up by the prosecution but it had
also demolished the submissions of the learned senior counsel for
NIA. Thus, it was submitted that if commission of terrorist activity
is not proved, the appellants could not have been convicted under
section 20 of UA(P)A. By referring to para-38(F) of the case of
Bashir Ahmed Ponnu (supra), as well as facts of the case as
contained in paragraphs 2, 3, and 6 thereof, it was submitted that
the facts were different from the present case in hand and
therefore, the said case favours the appellants.
186) By referring to the evidence of Trailukya Borah (PW-16),
it was submitted that in UA(P)A, presumption only as to offences
under section 15 is prescribed under section 43E of the UA(P)A.
187) In respect of the case of Sougaijam Rakesh Singh @ S.
Rakesh Singh (A-6), i.e. appellant in Crl. Appeal no. 262/2016, it
was submitted that from the evidence of Ng. Robert Singh (PW-
39), it can be seen that A-6 had met S. Rakesh (A-6), appellant in
Crl.A 262/2016 at Bangkok. In the said context, the contrary
Page 79 of 261
evidence in cross-examination of PW-39 read. It was submitted
that PW-39 had stated in his cross-examination that he went to
Vietnam with the Central Government delegation. In his
examination-in-chief, he had stated that on return, they had
stayed in Hongkong and Bangkok. But, the prosecution had woven
a false story to project as if A-12 had gone for UNLF activities. The
passport of A-12 was neither seized nor exhibited by the
prosecution to prove travel of A-12.
188) It was submitted that as per the prosecution case, PW-17
had met the Chairman, UNLF (A-19) on 3 (three) occasions, but
allegedly took A-6 once. Yet, PW-17 did not have link with UNLF,
but A-6 had link. This circumstance creates doubt on the
prosecution case. As per the evidence of PW-17, A-6 told him that
sometimes UNLF sponsors for academic purpose. But the
prosecution did not prove application by PW-17, seeking financial
sponsorship by UNLF and the prosecution had also failed to prove
any one such instance where expense for education or scholastic
research was sponsored by UNLF. Thus, it was submitted that this
was a case of no evidence and that A-6 was convicted on the basis
of surmises and conjectures alone.
189) By reading the evidence of Nongthombam Premchand
(PW-9), it was submitted that as per his evidence, the Course
Coordinator and S. Rakesh Singh had proposed that they can
extend their stay to Kathmandu and they will bear the expenses.
However, the learned Trial Court had misread and misconstrued
Page 80 of 261
the evidence of PW-9 and in para-70 of the judgment and the
word "they" was read as "him" i.e. S. Rakesh Singh (A-6).
190) On the point that terrorist organisation was not required
to maintain books of accounts, it was submitted that the kucha
slips did not belong to UNLF, but were provided to the I.O. by Ng.
Robert Singh (PW-39). In the said context, it was submitted that
the firm of PW-39 is M/s. Look East Nirman. As per PW-39, on
being directed by the I.O., he had withdrawn Rs.17.00 lakh from
bank and handed the money to the I.O., which means that PW-39
must have disclosed the said money in his accounts. By referring
to cross-examination of PW-39, it was submitted that the entire
prosecution case against A-6 falls flat because he had clearly
stated that Rs.60.00 lakh invested by A-6 was his personal money
and not related to UNLF.
191) By referring to paragraph 52 of the case of Zahoor
Ahmad Shah Watali's case, it was submitted that in the said case,
the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 574 (para-54)
was referred and the facts under which the observation was made
was explained.
192) It was submitted that the argument of the learned Senior
counsel for NIA regarding so called "sleeper module" was a
general and sweeping remark made out of cuff, and was not the
case even remotely proved by the prosecution.
193) The observations made in paragraph 9 of the case of
Page 81 of 261
Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 1 SCC 240 (para-9,
pg.43) explained and it was submitted that the examination of the
accused there. In under section 313 CrPC was not available and
therefore, the said case cannot be relied upon by the Court.
194) The evidence of Ak. Ibochouba Singh (PW-23) was read
over and it was submitted that the said witness had admitted that
the nature of transaction of sanctioning of loan on 30.07.2005 and
closing the same on 16.08.2005 by the adjustment of the term
deposit is permissible within the norms of the bank and he had
further admitted that N. Bomi Singh (A-23) (since deceased), Y.
Brajobidhu Singh (A-24) and A. Ibomcha Singh (A25) were good
customers of IUCB and all of them were reputed businessman.
Submissions on Crl. App. 291/2016 - Y. Brajabridhu Singh
(A-24):
195) By referring to the case of Sonu @ Amar (supra), it was
submitted that the said case had no application in this case in view
of objection made by the defence lawyer regarding absence of a
proper certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, which is
referred to in paragraph 51 of the impugned judgment. Moreover,
it was submitted that objection was also raised during examination
of Satheesh Chand (PW-53) and Siba Prasad Mohanty (PW-74). It
was submitted that the principle of "prospective overruling" was
first applied in India in the case of I.C. Golaknath, AIR 1967 SC
1643 (para 60 and 76). The case of T. Rajkumari v. The Govt. of
Tamil Nadu, AIR 2016 Mad 177: MANU/TN/2202/2016 (para-4)
Page 82 of 261
(pg.74-75) was also referred to.
196) For academic purpose, the case of Behram Khursheed
explained. By reading the provisions of section 65B of Evidence
Act, 1872, it was submitted that print-out is a deemed document,
which is subject to conditions prescribed under the said provision
of law. By referring to the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (supra)
and Shailendra Swarup v. Deputy Director, (2020) 16 SCC 561, it
was submitted that unless the conditions of section 65B of the
Evidence Act, 1872 is complied, no electronic record would
become a document.
197) To counter the submission of learned senior standing
counsel for NIA that Ext.185 was not objected to, the evidence of
Surinder Singh Bakshi (PW-79), Nongthombam Premchand (PW-9)
and M.C. Arun (PW-17) was read. Moreover, it was submitted that
there was no evidence against Y. Brajabridhu Singh (A-24), and
evidence, if any, was against AEGIS, of which A-24 was an
employee. It was submitted that the e-mails exhibited by D.P.
Gangwar (PW-44) was merely a copy of secondary evidence,
which is inadmissible in evidence.
Submissions in connection with A-8, A-11 and A-15:
198) It was submitted that the only evidence against A-8, A-11
and A-15 were e-mails. It was also submitted that even if the
Court holds that e-mails were proved, its contents of those e-mails
was never proved.
Page 83 of 261
199) In reply to Court query as to whether downloading of e-
mails by M. Joy Singh (A-18) and R.K. Meghen (A-19) has led the
said two accused to incriminate themselves and whether it violated
protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, Senior Counsel
for NIA had submitted that M. Joy Singh (A-18) and R.K. Meghen
(A-19) had voluntarily downloaded the e-mails and no objection
was raised at any time and nothing adverse has come out in their
cross-examination. In this regard, a recovery memo under section
27 of the Evidence Act (Ext.112) pursuant to disclosure statement
made by the Moirangthem Joy Singh @ JoyJao @ Nongyai @
Nilachandra on 18.11.2010 regarding downloading of e-mail from
his mail account was referred to. It was submitted that for
unauthorized downloading or access to e-mails, section 43(b) of
the Information Technology Act, 2000 might invite prosecution and
hence, A-18 and A-19 may perhaps had downloaded their e-mails.
It was submitted that Ext.114 and Ext.112 are the certificates
under section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 regarding recovery
and it was submitted that the print-out of e-mails were signed by
the witnesses present including expert and that after downloading
the said e-mails, they were transferred to a sterile base.
200) For R.K. Meghen (A-19), section 65B certificate (Ext.168),
exhibited by Siba Prasad Mohanty (PW-74), whose signature is
Ext.168/1, was referred to.
201) In respect of the Court query on charges framed by the
learned trial Court, it was submitted that none of the appellants
Page 84 of 261
have taken a plea in the memo appeal that they suffered a
prejudice. Hence, it is submitted that the appeal cannot be heard
and decided on a ground not urged by the appellants. The case of
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Subhas @ Pappu, AIR 2022 SC 1651
cited, wherein it has been held that in view of section 464 CrPC,
mere defective language on the narration or in the form of
charges, it would not render the conviction unsustainable.
202) It was submitted that PW nos. 3, 7, 11, 14, 19, 22, 26,
27, 34, 45, 59 had given evidence to the effect that UNLF was a
terrorist organization and had carried out terrorist activity.
203) In respect of Crl. App.257/2013- AEGIS was not
maintainable on facts and law as the appeal was not filed within
time permitted and moreover, as the time limit for filing appeal
this writ petition is barred by limitation.
204) In support of his submissions, the case of Sardul Singh v.
State of Haryana, (2002) 8 SCC 372 (para-8) and Periyasami v.
State, represented by Inspector of Police, Q Branch, CID,
Tiruchirappally, Tamil Nadu, (2014) 6 SCC 59 (para-9 and 15)
were cited.
Submissions by Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned DSGI:
205) On the case of Kalpnath Rai (1997) 8 SCC 732 (para-35),
cited by the learned senior counsel for the appellants to show that
section 3(5) of TADA had two postulates, it was submitted that the
said observation would not apply to this case because nobody had
Page 85 of 261
invoked section 36 of UA(P)A to assail entry of UNLF in First
Schedule of UA(P)A.
3(5) of TADA:
3. Punishment for terrorist acts.-
(5) Any person who is a member of a terrorists gang or a terrorists
organisation, which is involved in terrorist acts, shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years
but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable
to fine.
Section 20 of UA(P)A:
20. Punishment for Being Member of Terrorist Gang or
Organisation.- Any person who is a member of a terrorist gang or a
terrorist organisation, which is involved in terrorist act, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
206) By referring to the provisions of section 20 and 38 of
UA(P)A, it was submitted that as UNLF is in First Schedule, it is a
terrorist organisation and its members would become liable for
punishment of offence relating to membership under section 20 of
UA(P)A. It was also submitted that objection in respect of certified
copy regarding section 65B certificate not taken by filing petition.
Reply submissions by learned counsel for the appellants:
207) It was reiterated by Mr. B. Prasad, learned counsel for
the appellants that the recovery memo (Ext.113) under Section 27
of the Evidence Act as disclosed by Moirangthem Joy Singh @
JoyJao @ Nongyai @ Nilachandra (A-18) contains entry of
downloading e-mail from three e-mail addresses. Ext.113 was in
continuation to Ext.112, which is another recovery memo of A-18.
However, it is submitted that the e-mails were downloaded from
Page 86 of 261
one out of three e-mails addresses. It has been submitted that all
the exhibited e-mails are in Meitei language of Manipur and
therefore, without being translated into English or in Assamese,
the State language of Assam, the learned trial Court could not
have read the contents. Hence, it is submitted that the appellants
were convicted on the basis of presumption and surmises and by
relying on English translated e-mail without the translator being
examined in Court.
208) To counter the submissions of the learned senior counsel
for respondent no.2, Mr. M.G. Singh, learned counsel had
submitted that in the cross-examination of Satheesh Chand (PW-
53) and cross-examination of Siba Prasad Mohanty (PW-74),
specific questions were asked to the said witnesses to object to
the admissibility of the certificate purportedly issued under section
65B of the Evidence Act, 1872. It was submitted that in case the
section 65B certificate is not found acceptable, then it would be a
case of "no evidence" against all the appellants.
209) On maintainability of Crl. Appeal 257/2013, it was
submitted that the appeal by AEGIS was against order dated
26.07.2013 of forfeiture of the property of the said Society. It was
submitted that the copy of the order was not served on the
appellant and therefore, certified copy of the order dated
26.07.2013 was applied for and received on 03.08.2013. Hence, it
was submitted that the appeal filed on 26.08.2013 was well within
the prescribed period of limitation. It was submitted that under the
Page 87 of 261
scheme of UA(P)A, if a person is aggrieved by order of forfeiture
passed by the competent authority an appeal could be preferred
before the designated authority and thereafter the appeal could be
preferred before the High Court, however, under the provision of
section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act 2008, an
appeal can be preferred against any judgment or order passed by
the Special Court, not being an interlocutory order. Hence, it is
submitted that the appellant had exercised its right under section
21 of the NIA Act and therefore, the appeal, being a statutory
right under the NIA Act would prevail over the procedure
prescribed under the UA(P)A Act.
Points of determination in these appeals:
210) From the materials available on record, and on the basis
of submissions made at the Bar, the following points of
determination arises for consideration of the Court:-
a. Whether the prosecution has been able to establish that
the appellants are the members of UNLF, a terrorist
organisation?
b. Whether for convicting the appellants under sections 18
and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967,
the prosecution had to prove that the UNLF had
committed any terrorist act or merely because the name
of the UNLF is entered in the First Schedule, a
Page 88 of 261
presumption can be drawn that UNLF is a terrorist
organisation and is involved in acts of terrorism?
c. When on facts the accused were acquitted for offence of
conspiracy under section 120B of the IPC, whether they
could have been convicted for conspiracy under section
121A of the IPC?
d. Whether the electronic records, being the e-mails
exhibited as Ext.5 (series), Ext.18(7) and Ext.115 series
can be said to have been duly proved by the prosecution
in accordance with law and section 65B of the Evidence
Act, 1872? Or whether marking of document in evidence
is sufficient to prove its contents or whether contents of a
document are also required to be proved to saddle the
accused with criminal liability?
e. Whether the conviction of the appellants and sentence
imposed on them are sustainable on facts and in law?
Preliminaries:
211) These 12 (twelve) appeals have arisen from one common
judgment and therefore, the Court is inclined to pass a common
judgment.
212) In this case the prosecution has examined 84 witnesses
and huge numbers of documents were exhibited, which were
marked as Ext.1 to Ext.205, which includes large numbers which
are in series as well as Ext. X and Y which are also in series.
Page 89 of 261
Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that if the
contents of the evidence of all PWs and contents of all the
exhibited document are narrated, it would burden this judgment
with unnecessary volume, which can otherwise be avoided.
Therefore, only those relevant parts of the evidence are referred
to in this judgment, which is necessary to decide this appeal.
213) The relevant evidence of PW nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 33,
34, 35, 39, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 53, 57, 61, 62, 63, 67, 69, 72, 74,
75, 79, and 80 have been briefly referred in the hereinbefore
paragraphs as because those PWs were referred by the learned
senior counsel/ counsel for the appearing parties in course of their
respective submissions.
214) In the judgment impugned in this appeal, the learned
Trial Court has referred to the evidence of PW nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 33, 34,
35, 39, 48, 53, 64, 75, 78, 79, 80 and 84. Resultantly, it is
observed that the evidence of the remaining PW nos. 1, 5, 18, 20,
24, 25, 28-32, 36-38, 40-47, 49-52, 54-63, 65-74, 75-77 and 81-
83 have not been discussed by the learned Trial Court in the
impugned judgment.
215) It may be stated herein that in respect of evidence of PW
nos. 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 21, it is merely mentioned in the
impugned judgment that their testimonies are in respect of stay of
some of the accused in Guwahati and their subsequent arrest.
Page 90 of 261
Thus, from their evidence, it can be said that the said PWs had not
proved (i) that UNLF was a terrorist organisation; (ii) and/or UNLF
had committed any act of terrorism; and/or (iii) that any of the
accused in this case was involved in any unlawful act or act of
terrorism.
On Point of determination no. (d) related to electronic
evidence:
216) The point of determination no. (d) is taken up first
because the conviction of the appellants is largely based on
electronic evidence.
217) Therefore, it is first required to be examined as to
whether the electronic records, being the e-mails exhibited as
Ext.5 (series), Ext.18(7) and Ext.115 series can be said to have
been duly proved by the prosecution in accordance with law and
section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872.
218) The witnesses examined by the prosecution for proving
the electronic documents were (i) M. Baskar (PW-5), (ii) D.P.
Gangwar (PW-44), (iii) Satheesh Chand (PW-53), (iv) Nirendra
Narayan Bora (PW-71), (v) Kishan Lal (PW-73), (vi), Siba Prasad
Mohanty (PW-74), (vii) Dr. Rajendra Nath Khound (PW-76), (viii)
Surinder Singh Bakshi (PW-79), (xi) Aseem Srivastava (PW-80), (x)
Sudesh Kumar Sharma (PW-81) and (xi) Swyam Prakash Pani
(PW-84).
Page 91 of 261
219) We have carefully examined the respective evidence of
PW nos. 5, 44, 53, 71, 73, 74, 76, 79, 80, 81 and 84. The analysis
of their evidence is made below.
(a) Evidence of M. Baskar (PW-5):
220) M. Baskar (PW-5), at the relevant time was working in
Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh (hereinafter
referred to as 'CFSL Chandigarh' for short) as Junior Scientific
Officer. In his examination-in-Chief, PW-5 had stated that Parcel-A
received by CFSL contained one hard disk (Seagate, S.N
6VMPGSWN) of 500 GB, which was marked as Ext.H1 in the
laboratory. Parcel B contained one hard disk (Seagate, SN
6VMPHOVE) of 500 GB, which was marked as Ext.H2 in the
Laboratory. He had stated that he had opened those the sterile
storage media (Ext. H1 and H2) and he had forensically imaged
onto a storage sterile media and analysed using Encase 6 version
of M/s. Guidance Software Inc. U.S.A., and after imaging the
exhibits his finding are to the effect that (i) one folder named
"greenplate09@ gmail.com" found present in exhibit H1. It has
one file named "Outlook.pst" which contained 501 emails; (ii) two
file folders named "[email protected]" and "salai_taret
@yahoo.com" were found present in exhibit H2; (iii) one file
named "outlook.pst" contained 842 mail files present in the file
folder "[email protected]"; (iv) three zip files named
drafts, inbox and sent were present in file folder "salai_taret@
yahoo.com". The zip file i.e. drafts, inbox and sent were containing
Page 92 of 261
6032 and 2846 email files; (v) the retrieved email file folders
in/from the exhibits H1 and H2 is provided in DVD-R along with
the report; and (vi) the extracted emails from the inbox (67 files)
and sent (30 files) in the folder "salai_taret @yahoo.com" was
provided in CD-R separately.
221) PW-1 had also exhibited the examination report dated
31.01.2011 (Ext.1) and his signature (Ext.1/1) thereon. He had
also exhibited two parcels containing two hard disks re-sealed by
him, which were marked as Mat.Ext.1 and Mat.Ext.2 respectively
and the CD-R containing 97 extracted mail was exhibited as
Mat.Ext.3. He had also exhibited emails as Ext.2 to Ext.30. He had
also exhibited his signatures on the attachment to some of the
exhibited e-mails.
222) Thus, it is seen that PW-5 had put his signatures on the
e-mails and to the attachment contained in several e-mails.
However, PW-5 has not proved the contents of the said e-mails or
attachments thereto. The relevant entries have also not been
exhibited.
223) Ext.5 is the e-mail purportedly containing one attachment
namely officers list in 5 pages. PW-5 had exhibited his signatures
as Ext.5/1 to 5/6 on the e-mails and 5 page attachments.
Similarly, Ext.12 e-mail contained an attachment under subject
Manipur Peoples' Army and his signature on the said attachment
was exhibited as Ext.12/2. Ext.13 e-mail contained attachment
under subject "revenue collection account 2007" in 119 pages and
Page 93 of 261
PW-5 had exhibited his signatures on the e-mail and attachment
as Ext.13/1 to Ext.13/120. Ext.18 e-mail contained an attachment
under subject bio-data in 18 pages and PW-5 had exhibited his
signature on the e-mail and pages of attachment as Ext.18/1 to
Ext.18/19. A perusal of those exhibits shows that each page
contained 2 sets of photographs of 3 persons in each page.
Though each page has been signed by PW-5, but not one
photograph is exhibited.
224) On a perusal of the said e-mails (Ext.2 to Ext.30), it is
observed that none of those e-mails is not like the one that one
may find in respect of e-mail downloaded from service providers
like "gmail", "yahoo mail" and/or any other e-mail website.
Therefore, the Court has to accept the only plausible explanation
given by the learned senior counsel for the respondents that all
the said e-mails are the English translated and typed-out copy of
e-mail. Moreover, in none of those e-mails (Ext.2 to Ext.30), an
impression of "attachment button" is seen. A copy of Ext.5 e-mail
with signature of PW-5 as Ext.5/1 and the 5 page attachments on
which signature of PW-5 as Ext.5/2 to Ext.5/6 have been scanned
and attached to this judgment and order and marked as Appendix-
D for ready reference.
225) Moreover, none of the e-mails proved by M. Baskar (PW-
5) as Ext.2 to Ext. 30 or attachment thereto are found to be
supported by certificate as required under section 65-B(4) of the
Evidence Act, 1872.
Page 94 of 261
226) The PW-5 had stated in his examination-in-chief that
after analyzing of the exhibits, CD-R of 97 emails was provided to
the forwarding authority i.e. SP, NIA, New Delhi. Thereafter, hard
copy of the emails were taken out and on verification, he had
signed the hard copy of the emails. Therefore, there is no doubt
that the emails (Ext.3 to Ext.30) were all electronic documents
purportedly printed at CFSL, Chandigarh. However, the competent
authority in CFSL, Chandigarh did not exhibit any electronic
certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. It may also be
stated that insofar as the print out of the emails are concerned,
such print outs are also not supported by certificate under Section
65B of the Evidence Act. As stated hereinbefore, the contents of
the said e-mails (Ext.2 to Ext.30) were not proved by PW-5.
227) Thus, in the considered opinion of the Court, the herein
before referred e-mails marked as Ext.2 to Ext.30 and attachment
thereto are inadmissible as electronic evidence as they are not the
original e-mails and moreover, not supported by certificate as
required under section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Evidence of D.P. Gangwar (PW-44):
228) During the period from 1999 to May 2013, PW-44 was
posted as Junior Scientific Officer at CFSL, Chandigarh and since
May 2013 he was working as Scientific Officer in CFSL,
Chandigarh. On 12.10.2010, the SP, NIA, New Delhi has sent a
letter along with six parcels sealed with the seal of NIA for
examination of exhibits and for opinion. Ext. 97 was the said
Page 95 of 261
forwarding letter and Ext.97/1 to 97/6 was the details of exhibits.
As per this examination in chief, the PW-44 had stated that the
office was asked to examine- (1) whether the cameras and
satellite phones were in working condition; (2) all the contents of
camera including video files are required to be recovered; (3) all
the details both incoming and outgoing of satellite phone may
please be provided; (4) all deleted files may please be recovered;
(5) the contact lists of satellite phones may please be provided;
(6) all the deleted date (sic. should have been 'data') may please
be recovered; (7) any other data relevant to the above may please
be provided. PW-44 has stated in his examination in chief that he
had taken out hard copy of e-mail which are marked as E-102 to
E-116 and E-118. Those were exhibited as Ext.202 series, where
Ext.202/1 to Ext. 202/39 are his signatures. E-mail which were
marked as E-119 to E-121 and E-123 to E-136, E-138, E-140 to E-
142, E-144 to E-148, E-150 to E-155 were exhibited as Ext. 203
series and Ext.203/1 to Ext.203/97 are the signatures. He had
further stated by NIA letter dated 07.02.2011 forwarded by DSP,
NIA, New Delhi, two sealed parcels containing the question and
specified photographs of the suspects were received by him on
08.02.2011. After examining, he prepared his report and
submitted to NIA on 13.10.2011. Ext. 204 was the examination
report and Ext.204/1 and 204/2 were his signatures. His initials on
every photograph were marked as Ext.204/3 to 204/8. After
examination of all the photographs those were exhibited as
Ext.205 series and his initial in these photographs are marked as
Page 96 of 261
Ext.205/1 to 205/6. He had further stated in his report that- (1)
the photograph Q-1 was found to be matching with the
photograph S-1 (Jiteshwar @ Telemba); photograph Q-2 was
found to be matching with the photograph S-2 (SH. Mutum
Ibahol); photograph Q-3 was found to be matching with the
photograph S-3 (Wahengbam Toiba @ W. Naren Singh);
photograph Q-4 was found to be matching with the photograph S-
4 (Maibam Chaorel Sarat @ Noba Kumar Singh); photograph Q-5
was found to be matching with the photograph S-5 (Sinam Gune
Singh); photograph Q-6 was found to be matching with the
photograph S-6 (Kh. Jeeten). He had further stated in his
examination in chief that in a Court that day he has seen a sealed
packet, sealed with the seal which he was authorised to use,
which is marked as MO-80/3 containing one DVD by which NIA
has sent the soft copies of e-mails in different folder which were in
zipped format. He had examined the DVD in the laboratory and e-
mails were unzipped and the print outs thereof were exhibited
earlier above. He unzipped e-mails taken from safe DVD were also
provided in two other CD with his report along with the hard copy
of e-mails, which was opened in Court and marked as Mat. Ext.45.
The other two CDs which he made were exhibited as Mat. Ext.46
and 47.
229) Thus, it is seen that PW-44 has not exhibited the
contents of any of the exhibited e-mails or attachment thereto.
Page 97 of 261
230) In his examination-in-chief, PW-44 has not made any
statement which incriminates any of the appellants herein of
committing, abetting or participating in conspiracy for committing
any offence punishable under Section 18, 20, 21 of UA(P)A and
under section 121(A) and 122 of the IPC. Rather, in his cross
examination, PW-44 had stated that as he was a CFSL Expert as
such he was not aware if the material objects examined by him
are incriminating or not. He has also stated that he cannot say
whether the DVD sent to the CFSL containing the soft copies of e-
mails have been tempered/ edited or not. He had also stated that
before making the CDs tampering is possible in the soft copies. In
his cross-examination, PW-44 had stated that he had examined
the CDs and other software's and songs of different albums and
movies and after examining all the materials referred to him, he
had not found any incriminating materials. He had also stated that
the Investigating Agency had not asked him to examine/ query
relating to the CDs whether they are anti-social or not. Thus, the
evidence of PW-44 does not implicate any accused- appellants
from whom electronic devices like laptops, pen-drive, mobile,
satellite phones, etc. were seized.
231) It is observed that none of the e-mails or photographs
exhibited by PW-44 is supported by a certificate under Section 64B
(4) of the Evidence Act.
Evidence of Satheesh Chand (PW-53):
Page 98 of 261
232) In his examination-in-chief, Satheesh Chand (PW-53) had
stated that at the relevant time, he was Dy. S.P., NIA and IT In-
Charge of NIA. He had stated that Moirngtham Joy Singh @
JoyJao @ Nongyai @ Neelachandra (A-18) was brought to his
office on 18.11.2010 at about 4.30 PM and he voluntarily told him
that he has been working in UNLF since 1982 and he was using
two e-mail accounts, greenplate09@ gmail.com and green-
field006@ yahoo. co.uk for sending and receiving emails in
connection with activities of UNLF and he also told that if he is
provided a computer with internet connection, he can open the
email accounts and show the emails thereon to the I.O.
Accordingly, A-18 was taken to an adjoining room with
independent witness and I.O. and a computer having internet
connection was provided to him. He opened his e-mail account
[email protected] with his password and the e-mails from
inbox, outbox, sent items and draft was downloaded by A-18.
Ext.111 was the disclosure statement of A-18 and PW-53 exhibited
his signatures, signatures of A-18 and witnesses as Ext.111/1 to
Ext.111/10 thereon. Ext.112 was the recovery memo and his
signatures, signatures of A-18 and witnesses were marked as
Ext.112/1 to Ext.112/10 thereon. PW-53 had stated that printout
of all emails in inbox, sent items outbox and drafts were printed by
A-18 through a laser printer attached to the computer.
233) On 19.11.2010, A-18 was again produced before him. A-
18 opened the e-mail account [email protected] with his
password and the e-mails from inbox, outbox, sent items and draft
Page 99 of 261
was downloaded by A-18. Thereafter, PW-53 copied all those e-
mails with the attachments on to a new sterile hard disc to be
forwarded to forensic laboratory for the purpose of examination.
Ext.113 is the recovery memo by which e-mails were recovered
and copied in sterile hard disc (Mat.Ext.43). PW-53 had exhibited
his signatures, signatures of A-18 and witnesses as Ext.113/1 to
Ext.111/10 thereon. Ext.114 is the certificate under section 65B of
the Evidence Act, 1872, which contains date of 18.11.2011, i.e.
after one year of downloading. PW-53 had exhibited e-mails,
which were marked as Ext. 115 series (further marked as E/1 to
E/156) by projecting that those were print-out of e-mails. PW-53
had also exhibited his signatures and signatures of Siba Prasad
Mohanty (PW-74) as Ext.115/1 to Ext.1151/663 thereon. At
random, we have perused some of the said e-mails, viz., e-mail
marked E4/2 (Ext.115/13 and Ext.115/14), E5/3, E6/2 and E7/2
(Ext.115/15 and Ext.115/16), E11/2 (Ext.115/51 and Ext.115/52),
E22/2 (Ext.115/172 and Ext.115/173), E23/3 (Ext.115/176 and
Ext.115/177), E24/2 and E25/2 (Ext.115/178 and Ext.115/179),
E28/31 (Ext.115/184 and Ext.115/185), and E59/2 (Ext.115/704
and Ext.115/705).
234) On a perusal thereof, it is seen that the mails which have
been exhibited by PW-53 are English translated version. Those are
e-mails typed on a computer, but are definitely not in the format
by which e-mails can be seen and downloaded from "gmail",
"yahoo mail" or any other e-mail website. None of the e-mails
show the attachment button, even if any of such e-mail contained
Page 100 of 261
an attachment. One of the aforesaid exhibits [Ext.115/16) and
Ext.115/17] has been scanned and attached to this judgment and
order as Appendix-E for ready reference.
235) Thus, in the considered opinion of the Court, none of the
herein before referred e-mails marked Ext.115 series qualify as an
admissible electronic evidence under section 64B of the Evidence
Act and moreso, in the absence of any certificate under section
65B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Ninendra Narayan Bora (PW-71):
236) On the day PW-71 was examined before the learned Trial
Court, he was working as the Director (I/c), Directorate of Forensic
Science, Assam.
237) In his examination-in-chief, PW-71 had stated that when
he was working as Senior Scientific Officer and Deputy Director in
the Question Document Division, Mr. Mukul Kuli (who expired in
2014) was working as Junior Scientific Officer and Scientific Officer
under him for ten years. He had exhibited interim report dated
24.12.2010 of NIA Case No. 10/2010 sent by M.C. Kuli to the SP,
NIA, New Delhi camping at Guwahati regarding examination of
Laptop, pen drive, mobile, modem etc. containing signature of MC
Kuli (Ext.144/1 to 144/3) which he identified. Similarly, he also
exhibited the another interim report dated 30.06.2011 of the said
case as Ext.145 regarding examination of Laptop, pen drive, hard
Page 101 of 261
disc etc. containing signatures of M.C. Kuli (Ext.145/1 to 145/23),
which he identified.
238) He had exhibited a series of forwarding letters. For
convenience, all the said forwarding letters are discussed herein
together, as follows:-
a. Ext.146 and Ext.148 are the forwarding letters by which
report was sent by K. Sarma, the Deputy Director,
Chemistry Division. The signature of K. Sarma, who had
signed on behalf of the Director, which he identified was
exhibited as Ext.146/1 and Ext.148/1 respectively.
b. Ext.150, Ext.152, Ext.154, 156, Ext.160, Ext.162 and
Ext.164 are the forwarding letters by which report of
examination was sent by Dr. R.N. Khound, the then
Director, Forensic Science, Assam, which contained
signature of Dr. R.N. Khound, identified by him was
exhibited as Ext.150/1, Ext.152/1, Ext.154/1, Ext.156/1,
Ext.160/1, Ext.162/1 and Ext.164/1 respectively.
239) PW-71 had also exhibited several reports of examination
of electronic devices. For convenience, all the said reports are
discussed herein together, as follows:-
a. Ext.147 is the report of examination of (1) laptop, (2) one
2 GB pen drive, (3) one 4 GB pen drive, (4) one 1 GB pen
drive, (5) one Nokia 6233 handset with reliance sim, (6)
one Tata Indicom USB Modem. The reports contain the
Page 102 of 261
signature of M.C. Kuli, identified by him, which were
exhibited as Ext.147/1.
b. Ext.149 is the examination report of (1) one Nokia 1202
Handset with Vodafone sim, (2) one Nokia 1022 handset
with Airtel sim, (3) one 12 MB Rambo pen drive, which
contained signature of MC Kuli (Ext.149/1 to 149/6),
which were identified by him.
c. Ext.151 is the examination report of (1) one 80 GB SATA
hard disc of Laptop, (2) one Nokia 5310 handset with
BSNL sim, (3) one Nokia 7201c with Excel sim, (4) one
Excel sim, (5) two apacer pen drive, which contained
signature of MC Kuli (Ext.151/1 to 151/8), which were
identified by him.
d. Ext.153 is the examination report of (1) one Lenovo
Laptop, (2) 10 nos. of sim, (3) five nos. of handsets, (4)
two nos. of pen drive, which contained signature of M.C.
Kuli (Ext.153/1 to 153/14), which were identified by him.
e. Ext.155 is the examination report of (1) one 160 GB hard
disc, (2) 8 nos. of sims, (3) 5 mobile phones, (4) one 41
GB Transcend Pen drive, which contained signature of
M.C. Kuli (Ext.155/1 to 155/13), which were identified by
him.
f. Ext. 157 is the examination report of (1) one 320 GN hard
disc of HP Min Laptop, (2) one Nokia 6600 handset, (3)
Page 103 of 261
one Nokia 6600 handset, (4) one Nokia N95 handset, (5)
one Blackbery 9630 handset, (6) one Nokia 1600 handset,
(7) 7 nos. of sim cards, (8) one pen drive, which
contained signature of M.C. Kuli (Ext.157/1 to 157/15),
which were identified by him.
g. Ext.159 is the examination report of (1) one 160 GB hard
disc of Compaq Presario Laptop, (2) one Nokia E63
handset, (3) one Gfive U888 handset, (4) 2 sim cards, (5)
one pen drive, which contained signature of M.C. Kuli
(Ext.159/1 to 159/7), which were identified by him.
h. Ext.161 is the examination report of (1) one 40 GB hard
disc of Aser TravelMate 2420 series Laptop, (2) one Spice
GSM Dual Sim model QT-55 handset, (3) one Spice GSM
Dual Sim Model M-4580 handset, (4) one Maztor one
Touch 4 Mini 80 GB External hard disc, (5) 2 SIM cards,
(6) 4 nos. of software CDs, which contained signature of
M.C. Kuli (Ext.161/1 to 161/7), which were identified by
him.
i. Ext.163 is the examination report of (1) one 120 GB hard
disc, (2) one 80 GB hard disc, (3) 8 nos. of sim cards, (4)
5 nos. of mobile handset, which contained signature of
M.C. Kuli (Ext.163/1 to 163/20), which were identified by
him.
Page 104 of 261
j. Ext.165 is the examination report of (1) one 160 GB hard
disc, (2) one Spice GSM/CDMA model D-88 gold handset,
(3) one spice CDMA model C-5060 handset, (4) one Nokia
model 5030C handset, (5) 3 nos. sim card, which
contained signature of M.C. Kuli (Ext.165/1 to 165/7),
which were identified by him.
240) The said PW-71 had not proved the contents of any
electronic storage media containing any material which
incriminates any of the accused- appellants of committing any
offence whatsoever.
Kishan Lal (PW-73):
241) Kishan Lal (PW-73) was witness to recovery of emails
from R.K. Meghen (A-19) and had exhibited his signatures and
signatures on PW-81 in various documents and e-mails. However,
he cannot remember who prepared disclosure memo (Ext.166 and
Ext.167). He did not read or gone through the contents of the
emails described Ext.115. It may be mentioned that he had not
referred to any certificate issued as per section 65B of the
Evidence Act.
Evidence of Siba Prasad Mohanty (PW-74):
242) It is seen that the e-mails covered by Recovery Memo
dated 11.12.2010 (Ext.167) were not proved by Siba Prasad
Mohanty (PW-74) or by any official whose signature appeared in
the said Ext.167. To support Ext.167, the PW-74 had exhibited a
Page 105 of 261
certificate issued under section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Siba Prasad Mohanty (PW-74), who at the relevant point of time
was the Network Administrator in NIA had issued a certificate
(Ext.168) under Section 65B of the Evidence Act regarding the
data retrieved from emails on the disclosure of R.K. Meghen (A-
19), by which he had certified that the process of downloading of
the emails was uninterrupted. His signature was exhibited as
Ext.168/1. In this examination-in-chief, PW-74 had stated that
after getting the email ID and password of greenplate09@
gmail.com, they started downloading the emails along with
attachments. They started printing all the emails and attachments
of that particular email ID one by one and that apart from printing
hard copies of the emails from that particular email ID, he had
also transferred the data to a sterile hard disk.
243) Therefore, from the evidence of PW-74, it appears that
he had given a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act
for downloading of emails, being Ext.168. However, the said
Ext.168 does not certify the print out of the e-mails. Therefore,
electronic evidence is not found to be duly proved by PW-74.
Evidence of Dr. Rajendra Nath Khound (PW-76):
244) Dr. Rajendra Nath Khound was examined as PW-76. In
the year 2009, he was the Deputy Director, Instrumentation
Division, and from March, 2010 he became the Deputy Director
and from August, 2010 he became the Director. He had exhibited
a communication (Ext.139), thereby seeking time to examine the
Page 106 of 261
exhibits and to give his report. He had also exhibited interim
reports (Ext.144 and 145) sent to SP, NIA. The final report of
examination was exhibited as Ext.147 and the reports of
examination of certain electronic gadgets like mobile, hard disk,
pen drive, etc. were marked as Ext.149, Ext.151, Ext.153, Ext.155,
Ext.157, Ext.159, Ext.161. He had also exhibited a forwarding
letter (Ext.164), and his report of examination of hard disk of a
laptop (Ext.165).
245) He had stated that the finding in Ext.145 was publicity
materials (press release dated 01.04.2010 of UNLF), budget details
of UNLF, photographs, communication and emails etc. regarding
budget demand of UNLF. Finding in Ext.147 was some
photographs, letters addressed to Vice-Chairman, UNLF and
budget details and emails. The finding in Ext.153 are some bank
deposit slips, some photographs, budget statement of June, 2008
of UNLF, some letter head of UNLF dated 24.11.2008, account
statement of April, 2007, budget demand for January, 2008,
account statement of May, 2006, budget statement of 2010, and
family maintenance allowance of the organization. The findings in
Ext.155 are emails recovered from some laptop, and mobile data
recovered from mobile and data recovered from SIMs, account
statement of July, 2010. The findings in Ext.157 are some
photographs, letters, emails, name of cadres, publicity materials,
and data recovered from mobile handset. The findings in Ext.161
are some vehicle numbers, publicity materials of the organization,
budget for September, 2010, map of Nagalim under heading Delhi
Page 107 of 261
Unable to Kill Nagaland Separatist Movement, budget for
September, 2010 (sic. repeat), emails, data of mobile handsets
and SIM cards. The findings in Ext.163 are some photographs,
recovered emails, publicity materials of Anglo Manipuri War, 1891,
memorandum submitted to Chief Minister of Manipur, accounts
statement, data recovered from mobile handset and SIM cards.
The findings in Ext.165 are publicity materials of the organization,
some photographs, letter head of KYKL, some materials of UNLF
showing their cadre, budget statement of December, 2007 and
data recovered from mobile and SIM cards.
246) It is further seen that the e-mails covered by Recovery
Memo dated 11.12.2010 (Ext.167) were not proved by Siba Prasad
Mohanty (PW-74) or by any official whose signature appeared in
the said Ext.167. To support Ext.167, the PW-74 had exhibited a
certificate issued under section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872.
247) Therefore, when the primary evidence in form of
photographs, e-mails, letters, etc. were available, there is no
explanation why the prosecution did not exhibit such document
which constitute primary evidence, but exhibited report of the
electronic evidence. Thus, the findings contained in Ext. nos. 145,
147, 149, 151, 153, 155, 157, 161, 163 and 165 cannot be said to
be an admissible evidence as those reports are secondary
evidence and not the primary evidence.
Evidence of Surinder Singh Bakshi (PW-79):
Page 108 of 261
248) Surinder Singh Bakshi (PW-79) had stated in his
examination-in-chief that he had remained as one of the I.O's. of
NIA Case RC10/2010/NIA/New Delhi from April, 2011 till filing of
the charge-sheet. He had stated that on retrieval of digital
evidence, in course of investigation were translated from Manipuri
language to English language and were produced before the Court
as evidence after due authentication by Protected Witness No.80.
He had stated that the said Protected Witness No.80 was an
Assistant Professor, who was well versed in Meitei language of
Manipur had authenticated the veracity of the translated
documents, which were returned to NIA with his certificate dated
05.02.2011 (Ext.185), enclosing therewith 13 statements
regarding the emails from whom it was sent, to whom it was sent,
the date and the gist of the emails. Those statements were
marked as Ext. Nos.185/1 to 185/13. He had also submitted that
in course of investigation, on 21.01.2012, he was directed by the
CIO to prepare the proceedings of memorandum relating to
recovery of photographs from website www.flickr.com. 29 (twenty
nine) photographs were downloaded and forwarded to CFSL for
examination and matching. Ext.186 was the downloading memo.
The matched photographs marked as Ext.117/6 and 117/8 with a
large photograph as Ext.117/11. In his cross-examination, PW-79
had admitted that no mention was made in Ext.185/1 to
Ext.185/13 about the person who had translated the emails from
Meitei to English. He did not know who had translated the
contents of the emails. He had admitted that it was true that in
Page 109 of 261
Ext.185, nothing was mentioned about the persons who had
issued the certificate and there was no signature or any particulars
of the person certifying. He had stated that the photographs were
not seized from the accused. He had stated that he had not
produced the downloaded photographs before the Court before
sending it to CFSL, which he ought to have done as per law.
249) It is seen that Ext.185 is a certificate, which is unsigned.
As stated above, the Protected Witness no. 80 mentioned in the
charge-sheet was not examined in Court. His identity is not
disclosed. The prosecution has not proved that Protected Witness
no. 80 is a scientific expert as per Sec.293(4) CrPC as such, his
examination could not have been wished away or waived. Surinder
Singh Bakshi (PW-79) did not have the competence to prove
Ext.185. In this regard, the learned Senior advocate for
respondent no.2 has submitted that when the appellants have not
taken any such ground, he questions as to whether this Court
would examine the point. In this regard, the Court is of the
considered opinion that in this case, an unsigned certificate was
exhibited by PW-79 as Ext.185. Per se, the said document is
inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, as admission of inadmissible
evidence goes to the root of the matter, the Court is definitely
entitled to examine and to return a finding that Ext.185 is
inadmissible in evidence and a document purportedly written by an
unknown person cannot partake character of a certificate having
any evidential value.
Page 110 of 261
250) Therefore, PW-79 has accepted that the emails those
were exhibited were English translation of emails, which were in
Meitei (Manipuri) language. Therefore, downloaded emails were
not accompanied with certificates as required under Section 65B of
the Evidence Act. Moreover, in the absence of certification from
the person who had done the translation and in absence of
examination of Protected Witness No.80 in Court, who had vetted
the correctness of translation of the translated copies, could not be
shown to be admissible evidence under any provision of the
Evidence Act.
251) From the evidence of PW-79, persons whose photographs
were downloaded from the website of www.flickr.com could not be
proved to be members of UNLF.
252) It may be mentioned that the learned Trial Court found
the e-mails which were English translation from Meitei language as
admissible evidence by holding that the accused persons are
Manipuri people and therefore, they could have raised objection if
the translations were incorrect/ wrong. The Court is unable to
concur with the finding of the learned Trial Court for two reasons.
Firstly, because the Court had not mentioned in the judgment that
it was well versed with Meitei language and secondly, it is the
burden of the prosecution to prove a document, and only if the
document is lawfully proved, that the onus of rebuttal would be on
the accused persons. In this case, in the absence of certificate of
printing of email as required under Section 65B of the Evidence
Page 111 of 261
Act, the document is in admissible in law. As per the provisions of
Section 63 of the Evidence Act, it is permissible to give secondary
evidence of the contents of a document.
253) An English translation of emails in Meitei language could
have been proved by producing a translator. In this case, not only
the identity of the translator has been withheld, but he was not
examined as witness in Court. Admittedly, translation from Meitei
language to English was made by an unidentified person and as
per the evidence of Surinder Singh Bakshi (PW-79), an Assistant
Professor, who was well versed in Meitei language a person, who
is referred to as "Protected Witness No. 80" in the charge-sheet
had purportedly authenticated the translated copies. However, the
said Protected Witness No.80 was also not examined in the Court.
Therefore, the Court is inclined to hold that none of the Ext.115
emails from emails marked as E-1 to E-88 can be said to have
been proved in accordance with law.
Evidence of Aseem Srivastava (PW-80):
254) Aseem Srivastava (PW-80) was associate with Swayam
Prakash Pani, SP, NIA, the Chief I.O. He was a co-signatory of
production memo of documents produced by PW-7 (Ext.32),
disclosure statement by A-18 (Ext.111), recovery memo (Ext.112),
recovery memo (Ext.113), memo, of photograph taken of A-19
(Ext.127), disclosure statement of A-19(Ext.166), recovery memo
(Ext.167), He had stated that print-out of e-mails only from
[email protected] could be taken. Production memo of
Page 112 of 261
documents by Dr. Prem Chand (PW-9) and M.C. Arun (PW-7)
(Ext.187 and Ext.188) and he had exhibited his signatures
thereon. He had filed supplementary charge-sheet (Ext.189) and
he had exhibited his signature thereon. He had exhibited e-mails
to show nexus of AEGIS with UNLF, being e-mails enclosed with
charge-sheet marked as E-117 to E-155, Ext.190, Ext.190/1 to
Ext.190/5, Ext.191, Ext.191/1 to Ext.191/8, Ext.192, Ext.192/1 to
Ext.192/7, Ext.193, Ext.193/1 to Ext.193/12, Ext.194, Ext.194/1 to
Ext.194/2, Ext.195, Ext.195/1 to Ext.195/3.
255) However, PW-80 had not exhibited any certificate under
section 65B of Evidence Act, 1872 in respect of the herein before
referred electronic record.
Evidence of Sudesh Kumar Sharma (PW-81):
256) Sudesh Kumar Sharma (PW-81) was witness to recovery
of emails from R.K. Meghen (A-19) and had exhibited his
signatures as Ext. Nos. 111/11, 111/12, 112/13, 112/14, 113/13
113/14, 166/2, 166/5, 167/2, 167/5 and 167/8, 196/1 to 196/108.
However, he cannot say about the contents thereof or who
prepared the documents. He did not see the sterile disc in Court
and that he subscribed his signature on the documents without
going through its contents.
Evidence of Swyam Prakash Pani (PW-84):
257) Swyam Prakash Pani (PW-84) was the I.O. of the case.
He had referred to several electronic evidences in his examination-
Page 113 of 261
in-chief. He had exhibited disclosure statement of A-18 as Ext.111,
and his signature (Ext.111/11 and Ext.111/12) thereon. He had
taken print out of e-mails numbered as 1 to 2781, for which
recovery memo (Ext.112) was prepared and he had exhibited his
signatures (Ext.112/13 and Ext.112/14) thereon. He had stated
that those e-mails were transferred to sterile hard disk for which
recovery memo (Ext.113) was prepared wherein Ext.113/13 and
Ext.113/14 were his signatures. He had also exhibited certificate
under section 65(B) of Evidence Act as Ext.114. He had collected
dossiers of past antecedents and profiles of A-8 (Ext.170) and few
other co-accused. He had stated that A-1 to A-17 took rented
accommodation at Guwahati by concealing their original identities
and occupation from landlords. He had placed e-mails (Ext.115) in
the charge-sheet. He had referred to financial benefit several
accused and/or their families had received as mentioned in
documents referred as document E-89 series. He had also referred
to e-mails exchanged by some of the accused persons.
258) However, he had not referred to any certificate issued as
per section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, those
exhibited documents are held not to have been proved in
accordance with law.
Examination of electronic evidence in light of legal provision:
259) The electronic record that was exhibited by the
hereinbefore referred prosecution witnesses are Ext.2 to Ext.30,
Ext.113, Ext.114, Ext.115 (series), Ext.166, Ext.167, Ext.168,
Page 114 of 261
Ext.190, Ext.191, Ext.192, Ext.185, Ext.195, Ext.202, Ext.203
(series).
260) It may be mentioned that annexed as Annexure-B-2 to
the charge-sheet, is a list of 171 e-mails. In respect of some e-
mails, there are attachments thereto. The original TCR was called
for and upon inspection, the learned counsel for the appellants
and the learned DSGI and the learned senior counsel for the
respondent no.2 have submitted that the original of the exhibited
emails are very much available. Be that as it may, the printed
copies of none of the exhibited e-mails disclose existence of
attachment button and are not in the format of e-mail service
providers like gmail and yahoo mail or any other e-mail service
provider.
261) In light of Ext.185 certificate, the prosecution has proved
that it is not the original e-mail that was proved, which are in
Meitei language of Manipur, but they are English version, which
was translated by some unknown/ undisclosed person, and was
vetted by "protected witness no. 80", who was also not examined
in Court. Thus, none of the e-mail under Ext.115 series can be said
to have been proved in accordance with law.
262) None of the witnesses who had proved e-mails gave
evidence about the source from which attachment of the e-mails
have been downloaded. These attachments, amongst others,
contains the list of officers and photographs of UNLF cadres such
as Lt. Col., Maj., Capt., Lt., 2/Lt., photographs of some of the
Page 115 of 261
appellants in these appeals, details of expenditure incurred
purportedly for maintenance of family of UNF cadre, etc.
263) Charge-sheet para 17.6, 17.23, 17.28 and 17.36 contain
reference to some email addresses. However, none of the PWs
had proved that those e-mails was either sent by and/or received
by any of the appellants.
264) Moreover, in paragraph 17.36 of the charge-sheet, there
is a reference to the photographs from which the exhibited
photographs were compared. However, none of the PWs had
exhibited the original photographs. As per the prosecution, the
photographs of the appellants in army fatigue established that the
appellants are members of UNLF. Assuming that the photographs
were of the appellants, but there is no evidence to connect the
appellants with any terrorist act. It is not the case of the
prosecution that the photographs of the appellants were taken in
some UNLF camp or while they were participating in any act of
terrorism by UNLF. Therefore, the question is can by virtue of
photographs downloaded from e-mail of a co-accused and/or a
third person be sufficient evidence to charge the appellants to be
the members of UNLF? It is not the case of prosecution that the
said photographs were downloaded from the posts given by any of
the appellants in their e-mail, claiming to be officers of UNLF.
265) From the statement made at paragraph 17.6 of the
charge-sheet, the e-mail address of R.K. Meghan (A-19) is said to
be [email protected]. Similarly, in paragraph 17.28 of
Page 116 of 261
charge-sheet, the email address by which Thanil (A-21) was
communicating with Khungdong Tombe (A-1) was cnc_khuman@
yahoo.com. However, the learned senior counsel for NIA and the
learned DSGI could not show that there was any evidence
regarding identification of e-mail addresses of the appellants and
their link to UNLF through any e-mail address.
266) In respect of the e-mails, it is seen that except for the
photographs proved as Ext.5 series, the e-mails that were proved
as exhibit nos. 5 (series), 6, 8, and 115 (series) are mostly English
typed copy of the original e-mails, which are in Meitei (Manipuri)
language. Thus, they are not the original e-mails. Meitei language
is not the language of the Court and the learned Trial Court has
not recorded in the impugned judgment that it had read and
understood the contents of e-mails which were in Meitei language.
267) Thus, from the provisions of Section 65B(1), it is clear
that an electronic document is "deemed to be also a document", if
the conditions mentioned in the said section are satisfied in
relation to the information and computer in question and shall be
admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production
of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of
any fact stated therein or which direct evidence would be
admissible.
268) As per the provisions of section 65B(2)(b) of the Evidence
Act, evidence of particulars of any device involved in the
production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the
Page 117 of 261
purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a
computer must be given. In the present case in hand, not only the
print-out of the e-mails, but the print-out of the photographs of
UNLF cadres that were downloaded from e-mails of A-18 and A-19
as well as from website www.flikr.com were exhibited. However,
none of the prosecution witnesses had exhibited a certificate of
printing of those electronic documents as required by section
65B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872.
269) It may be mentioned that Satheesh Chand (PW-53) had
stated that M. Joy Singh (A-18) was brought to his office on
19.11.2010 and his computer was provided to A-18. He opened his
e-mail account [email protected] with his password and
the e-mails from inbox, outbox, sent items and draft was
downloaded by A-18. Thereafter, PW-53 copied all those e-mails
and attachments on to a new sterile hard disk to be forwarded to
forensic laboratory for the purpose of examination. PW-53 had
exhibited e-mails, which were marked as Ext. 115 series (further
marked as E/1 to E/156) by projecting that those were print-out of
e-mails.
270) In this case, admittedly, the email print-outs were first
taken out by A-18 at New Delhi in the presence of PW-53.
Thereafter, PW-53 copied all those e-mails and attachments on to
a new sterile hard disk to be forwarded to forensic laboratory for
the purpose of examination. The e-mails downloaded by A-19
were in the presence of Siba Prasad Mohanty (PW-74). One of the
Page 118 of 261
sample e-mails marked as Ext.115 series, which are referred
herein before in paragraph 238 above and entered in Appendix-E
to this judgment, do not contain the signatures of PW-73 and PW-
81, who were witnesses to their downloading by A-18 and A-19.
Be it mentioned herein that the signatures of A-18 and A-19 were
exhibited.
271) It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that on a perusal
of the emails, which were admitted in evidence as exhibits and
made a part of trial Court record, it is seen that most of the emails
are not print out from the email service provider's web-site such as
"gmail.com" or "yahoo.com" or any other e-mail service provider.
Moreover, the so called attachments are not reflected in most of
the exhibited emails. Therefore, based on the contents of Ext.185
certificate, the indelible impression gathered from the exhibited e-
mails is that the exhibited e-mails are merely print-out of an
typed-out document. For example, Ext.5 is an email which is given
the mark of E79/6 by the prosecution. The said e-mail is typed in
English. Although it mentioned in the e-mail that "list of officers is
attached" but on the face of Ext.5, there is no attachment
button/icon imbedded in the said email. The attachment
containing list of officers (Ext.5/2 to Ext.5/6) and the photographs
(Ext.18/4 to Ext.18/7), thus, cannot be accepted to be an
attachment to the original e-mail of which an English typed copy
was exhibited as Ext.5.
Page 119 of 261
272) In the absence of the e-mail being proved in accordance
with law, the English translated copy of the exhibited e-mails
cannot be said to be an e-mail downloaded from the mail service
provider and stored in the computer.
273) As mentioned herein before, the printed copy of exhibited
e-mails, though supported by certificates issued under section
65B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872, being Ext.114 and Ext.168, the
said two certificates do not cover printing by use of computers and
printers.
274) Accordingly, in light of the discussions above, the Court is
constrained to hold that the evidence of electronic evidence in i.e.
e-mails and photographs including list of officers (Ext.5/2 to Ext.
5/6) and the photographs (Ext.18/4 to Ext.18/7), thus, cannot be
accepted to be an attachment to the said email (Ext.5) are
inadmissible in evidence. The English translated copies of e-mails
in Meitei language are also held to be inadmissible in evidence
because the translator and the person authenticating the
translations were not examined as prosecution witness in Court.
275) The learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2 (i.e.
NIA) and the learned DSGI had strenuously submitted that the
said documents were admitted without any objection. In this
regard, the person who had translated e-mails from Meitei
language to English or the Protected Witness No. 80 who had
authenticated the translations were not the person exempted
under section 293(4) of the CrPC Moreover, even if it is assumed
Page 120 of 261
they are exempted from personal appearance, then also their
nominee must be examined as witness in Court and their
respective signatures was lawfully required to be proved.
Therefore, PW-79, not being a nominee for the translator and
authenticator, did not exhibit his competency to prove English
translated copies of e-mails, which were in Meitei language.
276) In the case of Anwar v. Basheer (supra), the Supreme
Court of India, while dealing with electronic evidence, had
observed as follows:-
22. The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted
hereinbefore, being a special provision, the general law on
secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the
Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia specialibus non
derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It
appears, the court omitted to take note of Sections 59 and 65-A
dealing with the admissibility of electronic record. Sections 63 and
65 have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of
electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections 65-A
and 65-B. To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of
secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this
Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru,
(2005) 1 SCC 600, does not lay down the correct legal position. It
requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way
of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the
requirements under Section 65-B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of
CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the
certificate in terms of Section 65-B obtained at the time of taking
the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to
that electronic record, is inadmissible."
277) In the case of Sonu @ Amar (supra), the Supreme Court
of India had observed as follows:-
The Effect of Overrule
Page 121 of 261
31. Electronic records play a crucial role in criminal
investigations and prosecutions. The contents of electronic records
may be proved in accordance with the provisions contained in
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Interpreting Section 65B
(4), this Court in Anvar's case held that an electronic record is
inadmissible in evidence without the certification as provided
therein. Navjot Sandhu's case which took the opposite view was
overruled.
32. The interpretation of Section 65B (4) by this Court by a
judgment dated 04.08.2005 in Navjot Sandhu held the field till it
was overruled on 18.09.2014 in Anvar's case. All the criminal courts
in this country are bound to follow the law as interpreted by this
Court. Because of the interpretation of Section 65B in Navjot
Sandhu, there was no necessity of a certificate for proving
electronic records. A large number of trials have been held during
the period between 04.08.2005 and 18.09.2014. Electronic records
without a certificate might have been adduced in evidence. There is
no doubt that the judgment of this Court in Anvar's case has to be
retrospective in operation unless the judicial tool of 'prospective
overruling' is applied. However, retrospective application of the
judgment is not in the interests of administration of justice as it
would necessitate the reopening of a large number of criminal
cases. Criminal cases decided on the basis of electronic records
adduced in evidence without certification have to be revisited as
and when objections are taken by the accused at the appellate
stage. Attempts will be made to reopen cases which have become
final.
278) It may be stated herein that the case of Anwar v. Basheer
(supra) was decided on 18.09.2014. However, the evidence of
Surinder Singh Bakshi (PW-79) was recorded on 18.08.2015.
Therefore, the law as decided by the Supreme Court of India in
the case of Anwar v. Basheer (supra) was very much holding the
field, notwithstanding the retrospective effect that said judgment
had referred to.
Page 122 of 261
279) Therefore, the legal position is that an electronic record is
a "deemed document" in terms of section 65B(1) of the Evidence
Act, 1872 and that it becomes so on fulfilment of the requirement
prescribed under section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872. The
prosecution has failed to demonstrate that the process of printing
of electronic record was covered by any of the certificates issued
under section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872. Hence, the Court is
inclined to hold that the learned Trial Court had accepted the
otherwise inadmissible e-mails and other electronic evidence,
which is not sustainable in the scrutiny of law.
280) In respect of e-mails proved by the prosecution, it is seen
that the learned senior counsel for A-8 has been able to
demonstrate that the e-mails exhibited as Ext.115 series is
supported by certificate under section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act,
which was marked as Ext.114. To support e-mails covered by
recovery memo dated 11.12.2018 (Ext.167), Siba Prasad Mohanty
(PW-74) had relied on certificate (Ext.168), issued under section
65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872. However, the said certificates
(i) do not identify the electronic record containing the e-mails, (ii)
do not describe the manner in which the print-out were obtained,
(iii) do not describe the particulars of the printer and other devices
involved, (iv) do not cover printing; and Ext.168 does not certify
the place where the print-out were made. The said certificates
merely certify that the computer was under the technical control
and supervision of the persons signing the said certificates and
that the process of downloading was uninterrupted. Moreover, as
Page 123 of 261
indicated herein before, though the certificate (Ext.168) was
exhibited by PW-74, the e-mails covered by Recovery Memo
(Ext.167) were not proved by them.
281) It is seen that the prosecution had proved another
certificate under section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872, which
was marked as Ext.185. The said certificate does not contain any
signature and therefore, it cannot be held that Ext.185 has any
evidentiary value.
282) The e-mails obtained after downloading from address-
enterprisedkay@ gmail.com were not exhibited by any prosecution
witnesses. It would be appropriate to mention here that some of
the witnesses have exhibited the hard-disk and CDs purportedly
containing the e-mails, but the contents of such hard-disk, storage
devices like pen-drive and compact-discs were not exhibited.
283) In light of the discussions above, the Court is inclined to
hold that the prosecution witnesses, namely, M. Baskar (PW-5),
(ii) Satheesh Chand (PW-53), (iii) Kishan Lal (PW-73), (iv) Siba
Prasad Mohanty (PW-74), (v) Dr. Rajendra Nath Khound (PW-76),
(vi) Surinder Singh Bakshi (PW-79), (vii) Aseem Srivastava (PW-
80), (viii) Sudesh Kumar Sharma (PW-81) and (ix) Swyam Prakash
Pani (PW-84) have not been able to prove the electronic evidence
in accordance with law.
284) In light of the discussions above, the point of
determination no.(d) is answered by holding as follows:-
Page 124 of 261
a. The prosecution witnesses have not proved the electronic
evidence, being Ext.2 to Ext.30 [inclusive of Ext.5
(series), Ext.18(2) to Ext.18(7)] and Ext.115 (series) in
accordance with law as per the requirement of section
65B of the Evidence Act, 1872; and
b. The prosecution witnesses, viz., PW nos. 5, 44, 53, 71,
73, 74, 76, 79, 80, 81 and 84, as discussed herein before,
have failed to prove the contents of the electronic
evidence, being Ext.2 to Ext.30 [inclusive of Ext.5
(series), Ext.18(2) to Ext.18(7)], Ext.115 (series), Ext.144
(series) to Ext.167 (series), Ext.204 (series), Ext.205
(series).
c. In light of the discussion above, the Court is inclined to
hold that the learned Trial Court had erred in law in
accepting the electronic evidence exhibited as Ext.2 to
Ext.30 [inclusive of Ext.5 (series), Ext.18(2) to Ext.18(7)],
Ext.115 (series), Ext.144 (series) to Ext.167 (series),
Ext.204 (series), Ext.205 (series) as a conclusive proof of
its contents which is found to be "not proved" because
the original e-mails were in Meitei (Manipuri) language
and the English translations were not proved by
examining the person who had done the translation, i.e.
Protected Witness No.80.
d. Therefore, the point of determination no. (d) is answered
in the negative and in favour of the appellants. The Court
Page 125 of 261
is inclined to hold that the electronic evidence exhibited
as Ext.2 to Ext.30 [inclusive of Ext.5 (series), Ext.18(2) to
Ext.18(7)], Ext.115 (series), Ext.144 (series) to Ext.167
(series), Ext.204 (series), Ext.205 (series) have not been
proved in accordance with the requirement of section 65-
B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is also held that the
marking of documents as exhibits are not sufficient to
hold the appellants herein to be guilty of committing any
offence because the contents of the electronic records
has not been proved, without which the involvement of
the appellants in any criminal offence or conspiracy in the
commission of abatement of any offence cannot be
established.
e. The electronic mails disclosed by A-18 and A-19 though
which photographs of the appellants, being W. Noren
Singh @ Thoiba (A-8), K. Jeeten Singh @ Khombo @
Dene (A-10), S. Gune Singh @ Boy @ Wanglen @ Little
Boy (A-11), Mutum Ibohal Singh (A-12), and L. Jatishor
Singh @ Tilemba (A-17), were exhibited by D.P. Gangwar
(PW-44) as Ext. 204 series; list of officers exhibited as
Ext. 5, containing signatures of Shri M. Baskar as Ext.5/1
to 5/6, and 10 (ten) sheets containing 2 (two)
photographs each of 3 (three) officers of UNLF containing
signatures of Shri M. Baskar, which is exhibited as
Ext.18/4 to Ext.18/13; and Ext.117 by Shri Siddharth
Indravadan Desai (PW-54), which was exhibited as
Page 126 of 261
Ext.117 contains report of examination with mark S-1, S-
2, Q-1 to Q-9. The same does not relate to any of the
appellants herein. Moreover, PW-55 did not state any
incriminating materials against any of the appellants
herein. Hence, the photographs do not prove that the
persons whose photographs were retrieved through e-
mail attachment are members of the UNLF in the absence
of any other corroborative evidence.
Offence of committing conspiracy punishable under
section 121A of the IPC:
285) The learned Trial Court had held that A-6, A-7, A-8, A-10,
A-11, A-12, A-16, A-17, A-18 and A-19 are guilty of committing
offence punishable under section 121A of the IPC.
286) It would be appropriate to refer to the provision of
sections 121 and 121A IPC, which is quoted below:-
121. Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting
waging of war, against the Government of India.- Whoever
wages war against the Government of India, or attempts to wage
such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with
death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
121A. Conspiracy to commit offences punishable by section
121.- Whoever within or without India conspires to commit any of
the offences punishable by section 121, or conspires to overawe, by
means of criminal force or the show of criminal force, the Central
Government or any State Government, shall be punished
with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either
description which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine.
Page 127 of 261
Explanation.--To constitute a conspiracy under this section, it is not
necessary that any act or illegal omission shall take place in
pursuance thereof.
287) Thus, from a plain reading of the said two provisions, it
appears that under section 121 IPC, conspiracy itself is an offence.
It is not necessary to establish any illegal or illegal omission as
overt act of the conspiracy or which has to be established to bring
home the said offence. The prosecution has to only prove that the
conspiracy must be within or without India to commit any of the
offences punishable by Section 121 of the IPC and the accused
persons must be guilty of conspiring to overawe by means of
criminal force or the show of criminal force to the government and
includes that (i) the accused should have entered into a
conspiracy; (ii) the conspiracy must be to wage war or attempt to
wage war against Govt. Of India (a) by use of criminal force; or
(b) by show of criminal force to the Central Government or State
Government. It prima facie appears that the criminality of a
conspiracy is independent of the criminality of the overt act as is
expressly laid down in the explanation of Section 121-A IPC.
288) The observations of the learned Trial Court in para-85 of
the impugned judgment is quoted below:-
"There was, however, enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable
doubt, as discussed in paragraphs 26, 46, 56 to 61, 62, 63, 65 & 66
of this judgment that some of the accused, namely, A-6, A-7, A-8,
A-10, A-11, A-12, A-16, A-17, A-18 and A-19 were conspiring or
attempting to commit an act which was in the nature of any act
preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act and were also
conspiring to commit an act which is punishable u/s 121 of the IPC.
Page 128 of 261
There was, however, no specific evidence of waging war against
the Government of India. Their act was limited to the extent of
conspiracy to wage a war against Government of India and before
it reached the stage of even an attempt to wage a war, they were
detained and brought to face trial. Accused A-6, A-7, A-8, A-10, A-
11, A-12, A-16, A-17, A-18 and A-19 are therefore, held guilty u/s.
18 of the UA(P) Act and u/s 121A of the IPC and are convicted
accordingly. Remaining accused are held not guilty u/s. 18 of the
UA(P) Act & u/s 121A of IPC and all the accused are held not guilty
u/s 121 of the IPC."
[emphasis by us]
289) Thus, it is seen that the learned Trial Court has
specifically held that none of the accused, including the appellants
herein, are guilty of waging war against the Govt. of India. Hence,
none of the appellants herein have been convicted for committing
offence under section 121 of the IPC. Therefore, the Court is of
the considered opinion that there is no evidence available against
the appellants in respect of ingredients of first part of section 121A
of the IPC i.e. "Whoever within or without India conspires to
commit any of the offences punishable by section 121".
290) Hence, it is to be seen how far the prosecution has been
able to prove the existence of ingredients relating to the second
part of the provisions of section 121A of the IPC, i.e. "Whoever
conspires to overawe, by means of criminal force or the show of
criminal force, the Central Government or any State Government,
shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment
of either description which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine."
Page 129 of 261
Evidence against UNLF as a terrorist organisation and indulging in
terrorist activities:
291) "Terrorist act" is defined under section 15 of the UA(P)A,
with which we are now not concerned as we are examining the
commission of offence punishable under section 121A of the IPC.
292) As per the learned senior counsel for the respondent
no.2, the evidence against UNLF as a terrorist organisation and
indulging in terrorist activities was by PW nos. 3, 4, 7, 11, 14, 19,
22, 26, 27, 34, 45, 59 and 83. The learned Trial Court has
recorded in para-85 of the impugned judgment that evidence with
regard to conspiracy has been discussed in paragraph nos. 26, 46,
56 to 61, 62, 63, 65 & 66 of the judgment. Therefore, the said
paragraphs are now being examined herein below:-
Para 27 of judgment:
293) In para-27 of the impugned judgment, reference has
been made to the evidence of PW-21, who had deposed to the
effect that sometime in the year 2010, police had arrested A-5, A-
6, A-7, and A-12 from his house. A-5 and A-12 were staying in
rooms rented by him and A-6 used to stay with A-12. He had
stated that vide two seizure memo (Ext.46 and Ext.47) police
seized several items and a large amount of cash money amounting
to more than Rs.2.00 lakh. The learned DSGI and the learned
senior counsel for the respondent no.2 have not been able to
Page 130 of 261
show how conspiracy is proved by discussion made by the learned
Trial Court in para-27 of the judgment.
Para-46 of judgment:
294) In para-46 of the judgment, the learned Trial Court has
discussed about Ext.115/740, which was an attachment regarding
information and table of Indian Ballistic and Cruise Missiles.
Ext.115/750 to Ext.115/872 purportedly contained information
regarding establishment of Military in Manipur and chronology of
Indian Missile Technology. The learned Trial Court had referred to
Ext.5 series containing an attachment of list of officers of UNLF,
being A-8, A-10, A-11, A-12 and A-17, which according to the
learned Trial Court was a sound proof of them being UNLF cadre.
It was also held that Ext.6/3 was a e-mail from A-16 to A-19
regarding plan to establish foothold in China. Ext.10/1 was held to
be a mail regarding picking up a contractor and demand Rs.1.00
Crore, which was accepted an evidence of extortion.
295) The learned DSGI and the learned senior counsel for
respondent no. 2 could not demonstrate that any secret
information regarding establishment of Military in Manipur and
chronology of Indian Missile Technology, hitherto not available in
the public domain in the internet was found in Ext.115/750 to
Ext.115/872.
296) Moreover, it was held by the learned Trial Court that from
the e-mail (Ext.10/1), extortion was proved. However, it is seen
Page 131 of 261
that the alleged person who had suffered threat of extortion,
referred to in Ext.10/1 was not examined as witness during trial.
Para- 56 to 61 of the judgment:
297) In paragraph nos. 56 to 61 of the impugned judgment,
the learned Trial Court has discussed the evidence of PW-3 and
PW-4. It would suffice to mention that PW-3 and PW-4 have
stated in their examination-in-chief that they had visited Manipur
in May/June, 2006. They have stated having seen UNLF cadres in
combat uniform with large amount of sophisticated arms and
ammunition. However, PW-3 has only identified Sanayaima (A-19),
as Chairman of the UNLF. Although the PW nos. 3 and 4 had
deposed that on 4 to 5 times they had telecast the documentary
titled "Hidden War in North East", the prosecution did not exhibit
the said documentary. The PW-3, in his cross-examination, had
refused to divulge the name of his news channel. He had stated
that the interview was conducted by his colleague. He had stated
that the film prepared by them was not seized by the investigating
agency. He had further stated that the original film was not
available with them. PW-3 had also stated that they fired some
firearms as a part of their demonstration, which was not filmed by
them. He had also stated that some young cadre gave them
interview, which was telecast sometime in September, 2006, but
that interview was also not exhibited by the prosecution. He had
stated that they had telecasted the edited documentary and not
the original recording. Thus, though electronic evidence of video
Page 132 of 261
shot by PW nos. 3 and 4 was available, the best and direct
evidence was withheld by the prosecution, for which the
prosecution had not tendered any explanation and reliance was
placed on the oral evidence of PW-3. Through PW-3 claimed to
have seen UNLF cadres, but the photographs of A-6, A-7, A-8, A-
10, A-11, A-12, A-16, A-17 was not showed to him.
298) The PW-4 had visited North East in May, 2006. His
deposition was more or less same as that of PW-3. In his cross-
examination, PW-4 had stated that he was accompanied by PW-78
on his visit to North East in the year 2007. It may be stated that
Virendra Kumar (PW-78) is the then Under Secretary to the Govt.
of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, who has issued sanction for
prosecution against all the 19 accused including the appellants
herein and had had exhibited the prosecution sanction order dated
09.02.2011 (Ext.137) and his signature (Ext.137/1) thereon. In his
cross-examination, PW-4 had stated that they had edited the
footage taken in UNLF camp before telecasting "Hidden wars in
the North East." He had also stated that as per request, paper
scripts were handed over to the NIA by the office. He had also
stated that except for the Chairman (i.e. A-19), he cannot identify
any cadre of UNLF. PW-4 did not exhibit the photographs of any
appellants herein as the UNLF cadre whom he had seen in the
UNLF camps in Manipur. Contrary to the statement made by the
PW-3, the said PW-4 had stated that request was made by NIA to
their organisation to provide paper-scripts and photography of the
interview, but the same was not provided. It is seen that it is not
Page 133 of 261
the case of the prosecution that the PW-3 and PW-4 had refused
to provide video photography of UNLF camp. Thus, though
documentary evidence and electronic evidence of UNLF camps was
very much available, the prosecution has relied on oral evidence of
PW-4 instead.
299) It may be mentioned that in para-61 of the judgment, the
learned Trial Court had dealt with the defence plea that no witness
who had seen the telecast of interview of A-19 was produced by
holding that PW-3 and PW-4 were protected witness and any
testimony of any witness regarding telecast would have, in
probability, reveal the name of the TV channel and the names of
the protected witness and it was held that this probably explained
non-examination of any witness regarding actual telecast of the
interview. Moreover, it was held that there was no ground for
those witnesses to give false and untrue statement.
300) The Court is unable to concur with the said finding of the
learned Trial Court. If the identity of the witness was to be kept
secret, the Courts are not powerless to do so. In cases under
POCSO Act and rape cases, all Courts, including the Trial Court,
High Court and the Supreme Court of India undertakes masking of
the names of the victim and any other family members through
whom the protected identity can be divulged and/or exposed.
However, in this case in hand, although no evidence was led by
the prosecution to prove the presence of any of the appellants
herein in the UNLF camp in Manipur by exhibiting the original
Page 134 of 261
video of "Hidden wars in the North East", it is not open to the
Court to justify lack of evidence on the ground that it could reveal
protected identity. The learned DSGI representing respondent no.1
and the learned senior counsel for NIA i.e. respondent no.2 has
not shown any case law wherein any Constitutional Court in India
had held that in criminal jurisprudence, it was permissible for the
Court to presume that a particular testimony is sacrosanct merely
because the witness had no reason to make untrue statement.
Thus, from the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4, it cannot be said that
there is any admissible evidence to prove beyond doubt that any
of the appellants herein were members of UNLF.
Para-62 to 66 of the judgment:
301) In the said paragraphs, the evidence of witnesses has
been discussed.
302) It was stated that Indubhusan Kongkham (PW-7) had
stated in his examination-in-chief that he had heard several
persons including A-14, A-18 and A-20 shouting at each other in a
room of a hotel in China about purchase of weapons and training
of UNLF cadre in China. In this regard, it is seen that the
prosecution has not proved that the police or the security forces
had seized any China made weapons from any of the accused in
this case. The prosecution has also not been able to prove that
any UNLF cadre was arrested with arms and ammunitions
procured by any of the appellants herein. Moreover, the
prosecution has also failed to prove that any UNLF cadre has been
Page 135 of 261
trained in China within a reasonable time after PW-7 had
purportedly heard discussions about training of UNLF cadre in
China.
303) The evidence of PW-7 has been discussed in paragraphs
354 and 355 of this judgment. Therefore, his evidence is not
replicated herein to avoid repetition. Upon analysis of the evidence
of PW-7, the learned Trial Court has held it to be trustworthy.
However, the Court is unable to concur with the said finding of the
learned Trial Court in the absence of any evidence by PW-7
regarding the following, viz., (i) his date of travel to Chengdu in
China; (ii) the name of hotel where he had stayed; (iii) the dates
when he had stayed in the particular hotel; (iv) name of the hotel
where A-14, A-18 and A-20 were staying; (v) the date, time and
the name of the hotel when PW-7 had allegedly over-heard the
persons including A-14, A-18 and A-20, assembled in the hotel
room where they were allegedly shouting at each other regarding
purchase arms and to provide military training of UNLF cadre in
China.
Evidence of extortion:
304) As per the finding of the learned Trial Court PW nos. 11,
14, 19, 22, 26 and 27 had deposed about extortion by UNLF.
305) The PW-11, namely, L. Pakasana Singh had denied in his
cross examination that he had personally made any transaction
with any member of the UNLF. He had also denied that there was
Page 136 of 261
any written demand for money. He had also admitted that in the
books of accounts of the firm where he was working it was not
recorded that any money was paid to UNLF. He had further stated
that telephonic demands were made from the truck drivers from
their phones whose names and particulars he cannot remember.
Thus PW-11 is merely a hearsay witness and therefore, his
evidence is not found to be an admissible evidence to convict
anyone for extortion or for conspiracy for committing the offence
of extortion.
306) Suraj Sapam, who was examined as PW-14, had stated in
his cross-examination that he does not know any accused persons
who were present in Court. He had also stated that those persons
(i.e. the extortionists) did not come to their firm to collect money.
Moreover, he had also stated that he cannot identify the person
who collected money. He had also stated that he had seen Ext.13
and Ext.14 and entries made therein for the first time in the Court
and he had denied that any statement was prepared by him. He
had stated that he had never experienced any instance where he
was terrorized by the members of UNLF. Thus, it is seen that
through PW-14, the prosecution has not been able to prove that
UNLF or any of the appellants herein had indulged in any terrorist
act.
307) The PW-19, namely, Th. Sarat Singh had clearly stated in
his cross-examination that he had never reported to the police
about any transaction from 2008 to 2010 regarding providing 5%
Page 137 of 261
of their allocated food-grains to UNLF. He had also stated that
UNLF had never threatened them in the matter. Thus, the PW-19
has also not proved that the appellants had indulged in any
terrorist act.
308) The PW-22, in his cross-examination, had stated that he
used to pay food grains to a contractor named L. Rupa Singh (PW-
26) and he did not deliver food grains to any other person. He had
stated that he had not received any written demand from UNLF
and he did not contact any UNLF member personally. He had
further stated that he did not know if the food grains collected by
L. Rupa Singh (PW-26) were collected for UNLF or not. He had
also stated that he had not received any threat from UNLF. Thus,
PW-22 has also not been able to prove that the appellants had
indulged in any terrorist act.
309) The PW-26, namely, Laitonjam Rupa Singh, in his cross
examination, had stated that there was no threat by the show of
force by using bombs, guns and other weapons to him or to his
family. He had stated that one Ranjit Singh (who is not an accused
in this case) had come to him once and that he cannot identify
him. In his re-examination, PW-26 had stated that he had received
threat from Jiten (A-10) over phone. However, the prosecution
had not exhibited the "call detail report" of PW-26 to prove that
PW-26 had received threat from Jeeten Singh (A-10). In his
examination-in-chief, PW-26 had stated that he can identify Ranjit
Singh and Jiten, but he did not see them in Court.
Page 138 of 261
310) It may be mentioned that Ranjit Singh, whose name is
disclosed by PW-26 is not arrayed as an accused in this case. It
may also be stated that PW-26 was examined, cross-examined and
discharged on 29.08.2013. As per the TCR, Khwairakpam Jeeten
Singh @ Khomba @ Dene (A-10) was physically present in the
learned Trial Court on the said date, i.e. 29.08.2013. Thus, from
the evidence of PW-26, the identity of A-10 has become disputed.
Although PW-26 asserts that he had received threat from one
"Jiten", but he had not stated in his evidence about the date and
time when he had received any threatening from A-6.
311) In his cross-examination, PW-26 had stated that for
recording his statement under section 164 CrPC, he was taken to
Court by NIA officials and that he had come out of the Court with
the NIA officials.
312) Although the PW-26 had deposed to the effect that UNLF
money was deposited in his account, but through PW-26, the
prosecution had not exhibited his bank statement to prove any
such transaction.
313) Thus, PW-26 has also not been able to prove that the
appellants had indulged in any terrorist act.
314) The PW-27, namely, Laitonjam Inao Singh, had stated in
his cross examination that he and his family did not receive any
demand letter from UNLF. The person who had demanded money
from his was Choaren Singh. It may be stated that the said
Page 139 of 261
Choaren Singh is neither arrayed as an accused and nor he was
examined as a prosecution witness. PW-27 had also deposed that
he and his family did not receive any threat from UNLF by using
bombs, dynamites, guns and other lethal weapons and he was not
kidnapped by UNLF. Moreover, although the PW-26 had stated in
his deposition that UNLF money was deposited in his bank
account, but no bank statement showing deposit of UNLF money
in his account was exhibited by him. Thus, PW-27 has also not
been able to prove that the appellants had indulged in any
terrorist act.
315) Thus, from the cross-examination of the said PWs, it is
seen that none of the PW nos. 11, 14, 19, 22, 26 and 27 had
supported the prosecution case regarding extortion by the
appellants or by any particular UNLF cadre. Moreover, except for
some statement against A-10 by PW-26, there is no evidence that
any of the appellants had indulged in any conspiracy regarding
commission of any terrorist act. Moreover, the PW-26 has not
proved that UNLF had extorted money from him or that he was
subjected to or had witnessed commission of any terrorist act by
the appellants herein.
316) Therefore, having regard to the second part of the
provisions of section 121A of the IPC, i.e. "Whoever conspires to
overawe, by means of criminal force or the show of criminal
force, the Central Government or any State Government, shall be
punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of
Page 140 of 261
either description which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine", the Court is constrained to hold that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove conspiracy on part of the appellants
herein.
317) Resultantly, the finding of the learned Trial Court in para-
85 of the impugned judgment that the appellants are guilty of
conspiracy under section 121A of the IPC is held to be not
sustainable on the basis of evidence on record. Therefore, the said
finding is liable to be interfered with and set aside. Resultantly, the
appellants herein are not found guilty of committing offence
punishable under section 121A of the IPC.
318) While dealing with electronic evidence in paragraph nos.
216 to 284 above, the admissibility of exhibit nos. 2 to 30, 166,
167, 168, 190, 192, 194, 202 series and 203 series have been
elaborately discussed and it has been held that the electronic
records has not been proved in accordance with law. From the
contents of the e-mail exhibited as Ext.6, the said exhibit ex facie
does not reflect that there is any attachment to the said e-mail. As
per the evidence-in- chief of M. Baskar (PW-5), e-mail at Ext.6 has
two attachments, which was exhibited as Ext.6/2 and Ext.6/3. In
respect of Ext.6/3, the learned Trial Court has held that the said
Ext.6/3 was an e-mail from A-16 to A-19 regarding plan to
establish foothold in China. The contents of Ext.6/3, cannot be
said to be a conclusive proof to construe it as an e-mail from A-16
Page 141 of 261
to A-18 because the print-out of Ext.6/3 is not supported by any
certificate under section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872.
319) The prosecution has not made any effort to show how
any particular e-mail is a clinching evidence to prove existence of
second part of section 121A of the IPC i.e. the appellants have
"conspired to overawe, by means of criminal force or the show of
criminal force, the Central Government or any State Government."
320) In overall examination of paragraph nos. 27, 46, 56 to 66
of the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court, and on
examination of evidence of PWs as discussed hereinbefore in
respect of S. Rakesh Singh (A-6), O. Samarjit Singh @ Naresh @
Kadeng (A-7), W. Noren Singh @ Thoiba (A-8), K. Jeeten Singh @
Khombo @ Dene (A-10), S. Gune Singh @ Boy @ Wanglen @
Little Boy (A-11), Mutum Ibohal Singh @ Ngamba @ Sanjay (A-
12), N. Dilip Singh @ Ibochou @ Mani (A-16) and L. Jatishor Singh
@ Tilemba (A-17), the Court is constrained to hold that the
prosecution has failed to prove existence of conspiracy by the
appellants herein, as envisaged under the provisions of section
121A of the IPC.
Examination of the individual appeal of the appellants:
321) As all thirteen appeals have been heard together, the
Court deems it fit to evaluate the evidence against the individual
appellants in seriatim.
Page 142 of 261
322) The learned Trial Court had explained and framed
charges against the accused nos. A-6 to A-19 under section 120B,
121A, 121 and 122 of the IPC and sections 16, 17, 18 and 20 of
the UA(P)A. Charge against A-18 was explained and framed under
section 18A of the UA(P)A. Charge against A-19 was explained and
framed under section 18B of the UA(P)A. Charges against A-23
(since deceased), A-24 and A-25 were explained and framed under
section 120B and 121A of the IPC and under sections 17, 18, 20
and 21 of the UA(P)A.
(i) Examination of evidence available against S. Rakesh
Singh (A-6), appellant in Crl. A. 262/2016:
323) Sougaijam Rakesh Singh (A-6), is the Appellant in Crl.
Appeal No. 262/2016. He has been convicted for committing
offence punishable under sections 18 and 20 of the UA(P)A and
section 121A of the IPC. He was sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for 7 (seven) years under section 20 of UA(P)A; 8
(eight) years under section 18 of the UA(P)A and 10 (ten) years
under section 121A of the IPC. Moreover, he was also sentenced
to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.
324) The submission from all sides was to the effect that after
serving out his sentence A-6 has since been released.
325) In respect of A-6, the prosecution has relied on the
evidence of the following witnesses, viz., Nongthombam
Page 143 of 261
Premchand (PW-9), M.C. Arun (PW-17), Ng. Robert Singh (PW-
39), M. Joy Singh (PW-61), and K. Krishna Kumar Singh (PW-63).
326) The learned senior counsel for NIA as well as the learned
DSGI for the Union of India have submitted that from the evidence
of PW nos. 9 and 17, the link of A-6 was established with R.K.
Meghen (A-19), who was the Chairman of UNLF, which in turn
proved the offence punishable under section 20 of the UA(P)A.
327) In his evidence-in-chief, Nongthombam Premchand (PW-
9) did not state where he was serving at the relevant time. In his
examination-in-chief, PW-9 had stated that he had visited
Guwahati with one Dr. M. Arun, Course Coordinator, for which he
was granted leave by his University for 4 days from 14th to 17th
September, 2009. He had stated that in the meantime, his Course
Coordinator and S. Rakesh Singh (A-6) had approached him and
proposed that they can extend their journey to Kathmandu for a
day. He was taken to Kathmandu, kept in a hotel and then he was
taken to a house where he had met A-19. He had stated that
though he was taken for 1 day, but he was made to stay for 3
days. As he had stated that in Kathmandu he went for shopping,
his statement in his examination-in-chief that after 3 days of
confinement, he came to Guwahati cannot be believable. PW-9
had exhibited, amongst others, the photograph of Naba Kumar
Singh (A-9) as Ext.35/2 and 36/2, which was purportedly taken at
Kathmandu.
Page 144 of 261
328) In his cross-examination, PW-9 had made contradictory
statement by first stating that he had informed the concerned
authority of Manipur University of his visit to Kathmandu and then
took a U-turn by stating that he did not inform the concerned
authority of Manipur University of his visit to Kathmandu.
329) PW-9 had also admitted in his cross-examination that
R.K. Meghen (A-19) was a resident of his village and he knew him
since his childhood.
330) Thus, it is seen that not only through A-6, but PW-9 also
otherwise knew A-19, being a childhood friend from same village.
Thus, if the evidence of PW-9 is to be believed, the prosecution
has only been able to show that PW-9 had met A-6 and A-9.
However, the prosecution has not been able to prove that A-6 was
a member of UNLF. The evidence of Nongthombam Premchand
(PW-9) would only mean that A-6 knows the Chairman of UNLF
(A-19), which is not enough for a presumption to be drawn by the
learned Trial Court that A-6 is a member of UNLF. PW-9 has also
not proved that UNLF was involved in any terrorist act. The PW-9
has not been tendered any evidence to prove (a) the date on
which A-6 offered to extend his travel to Kathmandu; (b) the dates
on which PW-9 had stayed in Kathmandu; (c) the dates on which
he had met A-19; (d) the place or hotel where he had stayed in
Kathmandu; (d) the place where he had allegedly met A-19; (e)
the mode of by which PW-9 had travelled to Kathmandu. Thus, the
evidence of PW-9 is found to be too vague and devoid of any
Page 145 of 261
material particulars which could otherwise be proved through
document.
331) Mr. M.C. Arun (PW-17) had stated in his examination-in-
chief that his second brother Jayanta Kumar had joined UNLF and
his sister Landhoni Devi (A-14) had eloped with Jeeten (A-10). He
had stated that he saw a web advertisement in 2007 regarding
one seminar to be organised by DOLL Foundation, London. As he
had no sponsorship to attend the seminar, he had contacted A-6,
who was known to him since childhood and A-6 had told him that
sometimes UNLF sponsors for academic purpose and told him to
write to Chairman of UNLF. Accordingly, PW-17 wrote a letter and
gave it to A-6, but got no reply.
332) He had stated that in the year 2009, he was to go to
Kumming, China to attend an International Anthropological
Seminar as a part of Indian delegation in the month of July, 2009.
A-6 told him that he would be in Bangkok on 01.08.2009 and PW-
17 could join A-6 at Bangkok and he joined A-6 at First Hotel in
Bangkok and he was informed that A-19 may meet them upon
which he was surprised and delighted to meet A-19 as he was
writing a book on conflict resolution in Manipur and only UNLF
talked about conflict resolution. On the next day A-19 came to his
hotel and met them. He and A-6 stayed in Bangkok for 4/5 days
and returned back on 08.08.2009. He had stated that in
September, 2009 he and one Premchand (PW-6) were at Guwahati
and A-7 told him that their journey could be extended upto
Page 146 of 261
Kathmandu and there they could meet some leaders of UNLF.
They stayed in a hotel in Kathmandu where a boy came and took
them to a house at outskirt of Kathmandu, where he met A-19,
Thabal and Nongyai, all members of UNLF. They discussed about
various social issues and cultural problems of Manipur and they
came back to Manipur after a day. He had stated that his expense
for going to China was borne by University and his expenses to
Bangkok and Kathmandu were borne by UNLF. However, in his
cross-examination, PW-17 had stated that it was true that he had
no idea whether A-6 was a member of UNLF and that so far as he
knew, A-6 had not committed any illegal acts or activities which is
against Union of India.
333) Thus, from the cross-examination of PW-6 and PW-17,
the prosecution has not been able to prove the existence of
ingredients of commission of offence by A-6 under section 20 of
UA(P)A.
334) As per the submissions of the learned senior counsel for
NIA and the learned DSGI, by the evidence of PW-39, offence
committed by A-6 punishable under section 18 of UA(P)A was
proved. On examination of the evidence of Ng. Robert Singh (PW-
39), it is seen that in his examination-in-chief, he had stated that
he and his father had started a firm in the year 2004, namely,
Look East Nirman and his brother was kidnapped by PREPAK in the
year 2001 and every year they had to pay 30-40 lakh to
underground organisations including UNLF. He had stated that his
Page 147 of 261
childhood friend A-6 approached him in the year 2008 for
subletting construction work on the term that he will invest money
and will take the bills along with profit. In construction of Food
Park project in the year 2008, he had invested Rs.60.00 lakh. In
2009, he invested Rs.40.00 lakh in taxiway project for supply of
material and a further sum of Rs.10.00 lakh in Taxiway project. He
had stated that in the year 2008, A-6 was advisor to student
organisation called AMSU and NEMSO and for this work he
frequently visited the entire North East. He along with A-6 and
many others went for a visit to Vietnam to attend Northeast India
Summit and when they returned, they stayed in Hongkong and
also at Bangkok. He had stated that sometime in 2009 he came to
know that A-6 was arrested in Guwahati.
335) He had stated that there was a balance bill of Rs.17.00
lakh to be paid to A-6, which was seized from him by NIA. He had
exhibited cash production memo (Ext.87), and his signatures
(Ext.87/1 and 87/2) thereon. He had stated regarding receipt of
an order (Ext.88) on 08.08.2021 regarding seizure of Rs.17.00
lakh, by which he was appraised that under section 26(6) of
UA(P)A, he had a right to appeal.
336) Vide Ext.89 and Ext.90, PW-39 had produced certain
documents before NIA, which was seized and he had also
exhibited his signature (Ext.89/1 and Ext.90/1) thereon. He had
stated that his firm maintained a kucha cash book (Ext.91) for
payment made to A-6 under the hand of his accountant Joy Singh,
Page 148 of 261
containing entries of payment made to A-6. He had identified his
accountant's specimen signature (Ext.92) and accountant's writing
(Ext.92/1 to Ext.92/10) and his signatures (Ext.92/11 to
Ext.92/20).
337) However, in his cross-examination, he had stated that he
cannot say if any of the members of UNLF cadre had demanded
money from their family members or their firm. He had denied the
suggestion that they never paid Rs.30.00 to Rs.40.00 lakh per year
to the unlawful organisations. He had also admitted that A-6 had
invested Rs.60.00 lakh in their firm as personal money and not
related to UNLF organisation and the said money was invested in
instalments according to the requirements and progress of the
work. The seized money of Rs.17.00 lakh was encashed from a
bank at Delhi and was deposited to SP, NIA, Mr. Swayam Prakash
Pani (PW-84) as directed by him and the said money was not
recovered from possession of A-6. He had also stated that the
seizure memo (Ext.87) was prepared at Delhi and that he put his
signature (Ext.87/1) without knowing the contents of seizure
memo. He had stated that he had never stated in seizure memo
that A-6 was an active member of UNLF to SP, NIA. He had also
stated that he did not know the identity of witness Kishan Lal and
he never signed in his presence. He had also stated that
handwriting and signature contained in Ext.92 was also prepared
in Delhi and the same was induced/ instigated by NIA person in
their custody and was not given voluntarily. He had stated that he
did not put his signature in Ext.92 and did not have any idea of its
Page 149 of 261
contents. He was not aware of the contents of Ext.88. He had also
stated that he did not go for appeal as the money did not belong
to him and he had stated that Ext.88 was sent to him with a
malaise motive and that the NIA officials know that the money did
not belong to him and the copy of the order was endorsed to him
wrongly. He had further stated that the said amount of money is
the due amount receivable by A-6 on account for his contract
work.
338) As mentioned herein before, PW-39 had exhibited Cash
Production Memo (Ext.87) written and signed by him. In the said
memo, it was mentioned that A-6 had invested Rs.60.00 lakh in
September 2008, Rs.40.00 lakh in September, 2009 and Rs.10.00
lakh in October, 2009 in the Food Park and Taxiway projects that
was being undertaken and executed by M/s. Look East Nirman
(LEN) without informing him (i.e. PW-39) that the amount is the
extortion money which belonged to UNLF.
339) The prosecution did not make any effort to prove that
money to the extent of Rs.1.10 crore as claimed vide Ext.87 was
actually invested in the two contract works by calling for the
relevant documents of the employer for which those two contract
works were executed. The books of accounts of M/s. Look East
Nirman was not produced and exhibited to show that there was
excess and/or unaccounted cash of Rs.1.10 Crore in the said firm,
which was used for contract work by the said firm of PW-39.
Page 150 of 261
340) In his cross-examination, PW-39 had stated that A-6 had
invested his personal money in his firm for doing sub-contract
work and he was thus, entitled to payment of bill including profit.
Thus, from the evidence of PW-39, the prosecution has not been
able to prove the correctness of the contents of the said Ext.87
with any cogent and admissible evidence.
341) From the evidence of the PW-39 it was apparent that the
kucha cash book (Ext.91) was prepared by the accountant of his
firm and that the accountant's specimen signature (Ext.92) and
accountant's writing (Ext.92/1 to Ext.92/10) and his signatures
(Ext.92/11 to Ext.92/20) were made at the inducement and
instigation by NIA person in their custody and was not given
voluntarily and moreover, as he did not put his signature in Ext.92,
he did not have any idea of its contents. Thus, PW-39 failed to
sustain any allegation of commission of any offence by A-6 not to
speak of offence under section 18 of UA(P)A.
342) M. Joy Singh (PW-61) is an employee of Ng. Robert Singh
(PW-39), working as accountant of his firm Look East Nirman. He
had identified the photograph (Ext.128) of A-6 and photo
identification memo (Ext.129). He had maintained kucha note
book (Ext.91) at his company's head office. He had exhibited his
signatures and signature of PW-39 contained therein. Entry
marked Ext.91/2 was that "account closed, amount to be paid to
A-6 is Rs.17,00,000/- only". He had exhibited his specimen
handwriting (Ext.92/1 to Ext.92/10) and his signatures (Ext.92/21
Page 151 of 261
to Ext.92/30). In his cross- examination PW-61 had stated that A-6
was a contractor and a businessman. He had not made any
transaction with A-6 personally and all transactions mentioned by
him was done by PW-39 and his entries were as per direction of
PW-39.
343) Thus, PW-61 was a hearsay witness, who had not
witnessed any financial transaction between A-6 and PW-39 and
therefore, from the evidence of PW-61, the prosecution has failed
to prove that A-6 had committed any offence punishable under
section 18 and 20 of the UA(P)A.
344) K. Krishna Singh (PW-63) claims to be a partner of Ng.
Robert Singh (PW-39). He claims that his firm had to pay Rs.30-
Rs.40 lakh yearly to underground groups including UNLF. He had
stated that on being introduced by PW-39, he gave some work like
building construction and supply of material to A-6. He was told by
PW-39 that on different occasions A-6 had contributed money to
the tune of Rs.20-Rs.30 lakh for working capital for which their
accountant M. Joy Singh maintained kucha diary (note-book)
(Ext.91). He had stated that he along with PW-39 and A-6 and
officials of Department of Commerce had visited Vietnam for
attending business summit on North East South East Asia,
organised by Indian Chambers of Commerce. He had exhibited
photograph of A-6 (Ext.135), photo identification memo
(Ext.135/3) and his signatures, and he had stated that A-6 had
Page 152 of 261
worked in the firm for some time. He had stated that he can
identify A-6 if he sees him.
345) In his cross examination, PW-63 had stated that his firm
and he individually had not received any document and paper from
UNLF demanding money. He had stated that it was true that there
are instances of extorting money, kidnapping for ransom, etc. in
Manipur by anti-social elements in the names of underground
outfits for their personal benefits Amount of Rs.1.50 to Rs.2.00
lakh was collected from their firm/ Gas agency by different
persons claiming themselves to be members of different
underground outfits including UNLF, but he cannot confirm
whether such persons are actually members of UNLF. He had not
reported such incident to the police. He had stated that he did not
have any personal knowledge about A-6 as regards to his criminal
antecedents, but as per his knowledge, A-6 was knowledgeable,
educated and intelligent businessman/ contractor without any
criminal antecedents.
346) Thus, evidence of PW-63 was in contradiction to the
evidence of PW-39 and PW-63 because those witnesses had not
stated that PW-63 was a partner in M/s. Look East Nirman. The
PW-63 has not proved the existence of any partnership with PW-
39 in accordance with the provisions of Partnership Act, 1932. In
his cross-examination, he had stated that A-6 was a businessman/
contractor without any criminal antecedents. From the evidence of
PW-63, it is seen that the prosecution has failed to prove that A-6
Page 153 of 261
had committed any offence punishable under section 18 and 20 of
the UA(P)A or that UNLF was involved in any unlawful or terrorist
act.
347) Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the evidence of PW-6,
PW-39, PW-61 and PW-63, the prosecution failed to prove that
any offence punishable under section 18 of the UA(P)A was
committed by A-6 because PW-39 had disowned having received
any extortion demand from UNLF.
348) From the examination of the evidence of Nongthombam
Premchand (PW-9), M.C. Arun (PW-17), Ng. Robert Singh (PW-
39), M. Joy Singh (PW-61), and K. Krishna Kumar Singh (PW-63),
as narrated herein before, it is seen that the prosecution has failed
to prove that A-6 had committed any offence punishable under
section 18 and 20 of the UA(P)A; or that UNLF was involved in any
unlawful or terrorist act; or that A-6 was involved in any criminal
conspiracy whatsoever punishable under section 121A IPC.
(ii) Examination of evidence available against O. Samarjit
Singh @ Naresh @ Kadeng (A-7), appellant in Crl. A.
289/2016:
349) O. Samarjit Singh @ Naresh @ Kadeng (A-7) is the
appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 289/2016. He has been convicted for
committing offence punishable under sections 18 and 20 of the
UA(P)A and section 121A of the IPC. He was sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
Page 154 of 261
under section 20 of UA(P)A; 8 (eight) years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- under section 18 of the UA(P)A and 10 (ten) years
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 121A of the IPC.
The sentence to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- was with default
stipulation.
350) The submission from all sides was to the effect that after
serving out his sentence A-7 has since been released.
351) To prove the charges against A-7, the prosecution has
relied on the evidence of Indubhusan Kongkham (PW-7). In his
examination-in-chief, PW-7 had stated that he had started
handloom business in the year 2005 and in the year 2010, he got
registered in the Industries Department in the name of M/s.
Nongin Enterprise. He has stated that he is also involved in
sending students to China. As per his statement, he came across
A-7, his childhood friend in a hotel at Guwahati. He understands
that A-7 has got links with underground group. In the hotel, they
discussed about themselves and A-7 told him that he had become
a member of UNLF. A-6 indirectly invited him to become a member
of UNLF. Instead PW-7 asked A-7 to start a business or to open an
office to send students to study. After a month, A-7 called him
over his surrendered phone and called him at a place at Noonmati
in Guwahati. PW-7 went to Noonmati and there A-7 introduced
him to one of his friend, Dilip @ Mani (A-16). They discussed to
send students to China at length. PW-7 had further stated that in
December, 2008, he had gone to Kathmandu with his wife in
Page 155 of 261
connection with his handloom business to survey the market.
Before his departure to from India A-7 called him and informed
him that Dilip @ Mani (A-16) and some of his friends are also at
Kathmandu. He told about his interest to send students to China
and that his friend would also like to discuss the possibility of
sending students to China through Nepal or if possible from Nepal
itself. He had also stated that A-7 had asked him to contact his
links of Chengdu Source Management Consultants Company Ltd.
He contacted Ms. Wang and narrated her about the same over
phone. She in turn asked the Director of Chengdu Source
Management Consultants Company Ltd. To be there at the
appointed time at Kathmandu. He and his wife was received by
Mr. Chen @ Alex at Kathmandu Airport and from there he took
them to a Chinese Hotel at Thamel in Kathmandu. From the
mobile phone of Mr. Chen @ Alex, he had contacted Dilip @ Mani
(A-16) and informed him about their location. A-16 came to the
hotel where they were staying with two of his friends. They met in
the hotel lobby and A-16 introduced him to his two friends, N. Joy
Singh @ Nongyai (A-18) and Thabal (A-20). They had discussed
about sending students, course fees, discount by University on
fees, etc. and were happy with the discussion. He left Kathmandu
with his wife next day for Imphal via Kolkata and Dilip @ Mani (A-
16) and his friends stayed on. He had further stated that at the
request of his uncle Mr. K. Manglem Singh, he had visited China as
asked as his cousin i.e. daughter of uncle was sick. While in
Chengdu, he came across Mr. Chen @ Alex. He told him that
Page 156 of 261
Nongyai (A-18) and his friends were at Chengdu. He asked him to
come with him and they went together at the hotel where they
were staying and met at the lobby. Nongyai (A-18) introduced him
to his friends, Mr. Lancha, Mr. Thabal and Mr. Sakhen. PW-7 could
understand that something conspired amongst them as they were
not happy to see him. He was asked to have tea at the lobby of
the hotel where they were staying and they went together in one
of the adjoining room of the lobby. He had stated that after having
tea and waiting for 30 minutes, he went towards the room where
they were talking. He could hear loud noise from outside. He
opened the room a little but did not enter. All of them were in a
confusion and shouting at one another. They were talking in
English. They were talking about purchasing AK-47, RPG, M-21
and about military training of UNLF cadre in China. He stated that
he was shocked to hear the discussion and ran back to his hotel
and next day he quietly left for Nanjing to meet Indian students he
had sent and the next day, he left China for India via Bangkok. He
had stated that after reaching home, Samarjit @ Naresh (A-7)
called him over his surrendered BSNL number and asked him why
he had left China without informing his friends. He had further
stated that being a true Roman Catholic, he had confessed the
truth to clear his conscience. He identified Dilip @ Mani and
Nongyai, who were present in Court. PW-7 had exhibited seizure
memo (Ext.32) by which he had handed over four documents to
Aseem Srivastava, NIA officer. He had exhibited seizure list
(Ext.32) and his signature (Ext.32/1) thereon. Ext.32(2) was his
Page 157 of 261
invitation letter from Chengdu, China. Ext.32(2)(a) was Chinese
script. Ext.32(3) (in 5 copies) was the Letter of Trust issued by
Chengdu Source Management Consultants Company Ltd.
Ext.32(4)(a to p series) was the copy of passport in his name.
352) In his cross-examination, PW-7 had stated that his cousin
had completed MBBS and was staying in India. He had also stated
that none of the students whom he had sent to China have
become doctors and he had heard that one has completed the
course already. He and his wife had stayed in a Chinese hotel and
did not know the name. In his cross-examination, his evidence-in-
chief could not be dislodged.
353) It may be mentioned herein that in (i) his examination
under section 313 CrPC, and (ii) in his examination before
sentence, the name of A-18 is mentioned as Moirangthem Joy
Singh @ JoyJao @ Nongyai @ Nilachandra, but in the judgment,
his name is mentioned as N. Joy Singh.
354) Nonetheless, on examination of the evidence of PW-7, it
appears that the said PW-7 had not proved commission of any
offence by A-7, A-16 and A-18. PW-7 did not depose to the effect
that he had heard A-7 committing any terrorist act, or had done
anything to incite or abet terrorist act. From his evidence, it is not
proved that A-7 was involved in the purchase of arms and
ammunitions to wage war against the Country. The prosecution
did not prove the call data record to show that the PW-7 had been
in contact with A-7 over mobile phone. From the evidence of PW-
Page 158 of 261
7, it does not appear that he had disclosed (i) any date on which
he had met Nongyai (A-18) at Chengdu; (ii) name of hotel where
he had allegedly gone to meet Nongyai (A-18). Even if it is
assumed that Nongyai (A-18) and others were discussing about
arms and arms training, but none of the persons had asked the
said PW-7 to participate in their activity. Moreover, assuming that
PW-7 over-heard someone talking about purchasing arms, from his
evidence it does not appear that he had not stated as to what
particular statement was made by A-6 and A-18. Moreover, the
prosecution could not establish that merely if a person is
discussing about purchasing arms and ammunitions or for giving
arms training in China would make such person an accused of
purchasing arms and ammunitions illegally for UNLF or to be
involved in having trained any particular UNLF cadre in China.
355) One of the submissions of the learned senior counsel for
NIA and the learned DSGI was that it was not easy for prosecution
to get hold of witnesses against a terrorist organisation. The Court
does not make any comment on such submissions. However, if
this is the standard of proof of unlawful activity, then anyone can
weave a cock and bull story and accuse any person by stating
before the police that he had overheard such person taking about
arms purchase from a foreign country. The prosecution has to
prove some corroborative evidence other than oral statement of
PW-7 to sustain the charges of aiding, abetting or being involved
in a terrorist act. The learned senior counsel for A-7 has used the
term "peeping-tom" for PW-7.
Page 159 of 261
356) The evidence of PW-7 was to the effect that A-7 had told
him that he had joined UNLF. Even if that evidence is accepted to
be an extra judicial confession, such statement alone is not
sufficient to make A-7 a member of UNLF in view of absence of
any other corroborative evidence.
357) The learned Trial Court had not appreciated that as per
the evidence of PW-7, A-7 had called him after he returned to
India and asked him why he had left China without informing his
friends. If that be so, the prosecution could have procured and
proved the call data record to show that A-7 had called PW-7 over
his mobile phone.
358) It would be relevant to quote question no. 19 of the
statement of A-7 under section 313 CrPC. The same is as follows:-
"Q.19: PW-80- Aseem Srivastava has deposed that he is Addl. SP
NIA and during interrogation Nongyai A-18 disclosed his email id as
[email protected] & [email protected] and
Ext.111 is his disclosure statement. Nongyai A-18 opened his email
account [email protected]. Ext.112 is the recovery memo.
On 11-12-10 R.K. Meghen A-19 during interrogation disclosed his
email if [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]. Ext.116 is the disclosure statement. He
opened his email account and Ext.167 recovery memo. What do
you have to say?
Ans:- I have no idea."
359) In the considered opinion of the Court, the said question
no. 19 does not show that A-7 was confronted with any evidence
which implicates him of committing any offence whatsoever.
Page 160 of 261
360) Moreover, the recovery memos, referred to in question 19
above, being Ext.111, 112 and 116, purportedly under section 27
of the Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be held to be a substitute of a
certificate for electronic evidence which is a mandatory
requirement under section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872.
361) To implicate A-7 of having visited China, the prosecution
had relied on the evidence of Kongkham Indubhusan (PW-7) and
Aseem Srivastava (PW-80), through whom the Production Memo
(Ext.32) was exhibited. As stated herein before, by the said Ext.32,
the following documents were produced, viz., (i) scanned copy of
invitation issued by General Manager of Chengdu Source
Management Consultant Co. Ltd., Sichuan, China, addressed to Mr.
K. Indubhusan (Passport no. B1703038) dated 12-10-2008 (two
sheets); (ii) Xerox copy of letter of trust dated 11-11-2004 issued
by Director, International office, Sichuan University, China along
with photocopy of letter of Prof. Fang Ding Jhi dated 20.02.2008
of Sichuan University, China and agreement for students enrolling
for Sichuan University, China (five sheets); (iii) photocopy of
passport of Kongkham Indubhusan, Imphal, issued by RPO Delhi
(ten) sheets; (iv) photocopy of passport no. H1581707 dated 31-
12-2008 of Kongkham Indubhusan, Imphal, issued by RPO
Guwahati (ten sheets). The photocopies of documents are
inadmissible in evidence and moreover, the documents produced
vide Ext.32 does not prove any fact. The PW-7 did not prove his
visit to Kathmandu or China as he had not exhibited any hotel bill
for food and lodging in those foreign countries.
Page 161 of 261
362) The learned Trial Court in paragraphs 62 to 65 had
discussed about the evidence of PW-7 and the conclusion of the
learned Trial Court was that there was no ground for PW-7 to have
spoken a lie. The Court is unable to concur with such finding as it
is not based on any sound or legally acceptable principles of
criminal jurisprudence followed in India. In a criminal prosecution,
the finding of guilt must be beyond reasonable doubt and not
because the Court is of the opinion that a particular witness had
no reason to lie.
363) The learned senior counsel for NIA and the learned DSGI
for the Union of India have both submitted that from the evidence
of PW-7, the link of A-7 as member of UNLF was established,
which in turn proved that A-7 had committed offence which was
punishable under section 18 and 20 of the UA(P)A and under
section 121A of the IPC. It was also submitted that there was no
cross-examination of PW-7 and no defence evidence was tendered
by A-7 to show that he did not tell PW-7 that he had joined UNLF
or that A-16 and A-18 were not discussing about purchasing arms
and ammunitions from China or to give training to UNLF cadre at
China.
364) In the context of aforesaid submissions, it is seen that no
evidence was tendered by PW-7 to connect A-7 with any terrorist
act or abetment of any terrorist act. Moreover, there is no
evidence that A-7 had made any mobile phone calls to PW-7. In a
criminal trial, the accused has a right to be silent and therefore,
Page 162 of 261
the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove a fact. Unless
the prosecution discharges such burden, the onus cannot shift to
A-7 to explain his alleged acts.
365) Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to prove that O. Samarjit Singh @ Naresh @
Kadeng (A-7) had committed any offence punishable under section
18 and 20 of the UA(P)A and section 121A of the IPC. In the
context of A-7, the prosecution has failed to prove that UNLF was
involved in any unlawful or terrorist act or that A-7 was also
involved in any terrorist act or in any criminal conspiracy against
the Government of India.
(iii) Examination of evidence available against Wayenbam
Noren Singh @ W. Noren (A-8), appellant in Crl. A.
265/2016:
366) Wayenbam Noren Singh @ W. Noren Meetei @ Thoiba
(A-8) is the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 265/2016. He was
convicted for committing offence punishable under sections 18 and
20 of the UA(P)A and under section 121A of the IPC. He was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 8 (eight) years and to pay
a fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 8 of UA(P)A; 7 (seven) years
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 20 of the UA(P)A,
and 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under section
121A of the IPC. The payment of fine was with default stipulation.
Page 163 of 261
367) The submission from all sides was to the effect that after
serving out his sentence A-8 has since been released.
368) It may be stated that the learned Trial Court had framed
charges against A-8 under sections 120B, 121A and 122 of the IPC
and sections 16, 17, 18 and 20 of the UA(P)A.
369) Against A-8, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of
M. Baskar (PW-5), Ujwal Bhattacharya (PW-8); Dr. Nilambar
Thakuria (PW-10); Pradip Nath (PW-12); Gajendranath
Bhattacharya (PW-31); Someswar Dutta (PW-33), D.P. Gangwar
(PW-44), Amalendu Dhar (PW-51), Satheesh Chand (PW-53),
Devinder Singh (PW-62); Siba Prasad Mohanty (PW-74), Virendra
Kumar (PW-78), Surinder Singh Bakshi (PW-79); Aseem Srivastava
(PW-80); Swayam Prakash Pani (PW-84).
370) Moreover, to implicate A-8, the prosecution has placed
reliance on the following exhibits, viz., print-out of e-mails (Ext.2
to Ext.30); forwarding report of I.O. of Noonmati P.S. Case No.
159/2010; (Ext.75); disclosure memo of M. Joy Singh (A-18)
(Ext.111); Recovery memo dated 18.11.2010 (Ext.112); Recovery
memo dated 19.11.2010 (Ext.113); certificate issued by Satheesh
Chand (PW-53) under section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872
(Ext.114); print-out of e-mails (Ext.115 series); disclosure
statement dated 11.12.2010 by Raj Kumar Meghen (A-19)
(Ext.166); recovery memo dated 11.12.2010 (Ext.167); dossier of
A-10 (Ext.175); print-out of e-mails (Ext.176); certificate
Page 164 of 261
(Ext.185); print-out of e-mails (Ext.190 to Ext.195); Report of D.P.
Gangwar (PW-44) (Ext.204).
371) M. Baskar (PW-5) has exhibited various e-mails and
attachments contained in some e-mails as Ext.1 to Ext.30, and he
had also exhibited M. Ext.1, M.Ext.2, M.Ext.3, M.Ext.43 and
M.Ext.44. However, it may be stated that he did not make any
specific statement against A-8. He had merely stated that Ext.5 is
the e-mail dated 29.05.2009 from [email protected] to
[email protected] and that Ext.5/1 was his signature and he
had also stated that the said e-mail contained one attachment
namely officer's list in 5 (five) pages, which was exhibited as
Ext.5/2 to Ext.5/6. PW-5 did not identify the specific entry
containing the name of A-8. In his cross- examination, PW-5 had
stated that the hard disk contained in Parcel-A and Parcel-B were
sent by NIA and not by competent court.
372) Ujwal Bhattacharya was examined as PW-8. He had let
out his house to one Ratan Singh, but on 19.08.2010, he was
informed by one Mr. Basumatary that in a police raid in his house
2 (two) extremists were picked up and he later on came to know
that the two persons who were occupying his flat were Mr. Naren
Singh (A-8) and Ms. Chanu (A-13). He had exhibited the seizure
memo (Ext.33) and his signature (Ext.33/1) thereon. By the said
seizure memo (i) proforma for verification (Ext.34), (ii) copies of
photo i/d card (Ext.34/2 and Ext.34/3), (iii) copy of tenancy
agreement (Ext.34/4) were seized. He had stated that the tenancy
Page 165 of 261
agreement was done by him for his father. He had seen and
identified Noren (A-8) and Chanu (A-13) in Court that day.
373) Be it stated that the learned trial court did not record
who was identified by PW-8 as Noren and Chanu.
374) Dr. Nilambar Thakuria was examined as PW-10. He is the
secretary of the management society of the building where a flat is
owned by G.N. Bhattacharya (PW-13), who is the father of PW-8.
PW-10 had stated in his examination-in- chief that Ratan Singh
was staying in the flat of PW-13, which was later on occupied by
W. Noren Singh, his wife and one lady. On 19.08.2010, the police
had conducted search and seizure in the said flat and he was
called to witness the arrest of A-8 and seizure. He had exhibited
the seizure memo (Ext.37) and his signature (Ext.37/1) thereon
and he had also referred to the description of the articles seized.
He had exhibited M.Ext. Nos. 4 to 7. Thus, A-10 did not prove
involvement of A-8 in any criminal act.
375) Pradip Nath was examined as PW-12. He was working as
security guard in the apartment from where Noren Singh (A-8),
and Hanbi Chanu (A-13) were arrested. He had stated in his
examination-in-chief that Naba Kumar Singh (A-9) had overheard
him discussing about accommodation for his son and offered to
allow his son to stay with him in his rented accommodation and A-
9 shifted from the building where he was working along with his
son. He had exhibited tenant verification form submitted by A-9
(Ext.38) and by his son (Ext.39) with Dispur P.S. On 19.08.2010,
Page 166 of 261
the police arrested A-8 and A-10 and also seized laptop, cash, pen
drive, and mobile from their possession. Thus, A-12 did not prove
involvement of A-8 in any criminal act.
376) Gajendranath Bhattacharya was examined as PW-31. He
had let out his flat to one Ratan Singh, but later on he found that
his flat was occupied by Noren Singh (A-8) and Chanu (A-13). He
had stated in his examination-in-chief that in Ext.34/1, he had put
his signature (Ext.34/5). He had exhibited the tenancy agreement
with Ratan Singh as Ext.34/4 and his signature (Ext.34/6) thereon.
377) Someswar Dutta, who was the then S.I. of Police and
posted in Noonmati P.S. was examined as PW-33. On 19.08.2010,
the police had arrested 11 accused persons including A-8. He had
exhibited the forwarding memo of the arrested accused as Ext.75.
Though he had exhibited three seizure memos dated 19.08.2010
as Ext.61, Ext.79 and Ext.80, but he did not state in his
examination-in-chief about the description of articles entered
therein and did not correlate those with the accused from whom
those articles were seized.
378) D.P. Gangwar (PW-44) had not given any incriminating
statement against A-8 in his examination-in-chief. He was the
Senior Scientific Officer in CFSL, Chandigarh and had examined 6
(six) parcels sealed with the seal of NIA, New Delhi which were
forwarded vide letter (Ext.97), and the details of articles were
exhibited as Ext.97/1 to Ext.97/6. His office was asked to examine
(1) whether the cameras and satellite phones were in working
Page 167 of 261
condition; all the contents of camera including video files are
required to be recovered; (3) all the details both incoming and
outgoing of satellite phone may please be provided; (4) all deleted
files may please be recovered; (5) the contact lists of satellite
phones may please be provided; (6) all the deleted date (sic.
should have been 'data') may please be recovered; (7) any other
data relevant to the above may please be provided. In his cross-
examination, PW-44 had stated that he had examined the CDs and
other software's and songs of different albums and movies and
after examining all the materials referred to him, he had not found
any incriminating materials. He had also stated that the
Investigating Agency had not asked him to examine/ query
relating to the CDs whether they are anti-social or not. Thus, the
evidence of PW-44 does not implicate A-8 on the basis of
electronic articles like, laptops, pen-drive, etc. Seized from him
vide Ext.37. It may be stated that PW-44 has not identified a
particular electronic device like laptop and pen-drive seized from
A-8.
379) Amalendu Dhar (PW-51), who was the Inspector in NIA,
had stated that Ext.33 is the document by which he had seized
four documents produced by Ujwal Bhattacharya (PW-8) and
Ext.32/2 was his signature and Ext.34/ to Ext.34/4 are the
documents relating to tenancy agreement, proforma of verification
of tenants, photocopy of PAN card, and photocopy of an identity
card. Thus, PW-51 had not implicated A-8 of committing any
offence whatsoever.
Page 168 of 261
380) Satheesh Chand (PW-53) had stated about recovery of
mails from two e-mail accounts of Moirangtham Joy Singh (A-18).
He has not stated about recovery of any e-mail which contains
materials to prove that A-8 had committed any offence
whatsoever. He had exhibited disclosure statement of A-18
(Ext.111) and signatures (Ext.111/1 to Ext.111/10) thereon;
recovery memo (Ext.112) and signatures (Ext.112/1 to
Ext.112/10) thereon; recovery memo (Ext.113) and signatures
(Ext.113/1 to Ext.112/12) thereon; certificate under section 65(B)
of the Evidence Act (Ext.114) and his signature (Ext.114/1)
thereon; print-out of e-mails (Ext.115) and series of signature
(Ext.115/1 to Ext.115/653) thereon. PW-53 did not identify any
document implicating A-8 of committing any offence.
381) Devinder Singh (PW-62), along with Amalendu Dhar (PW-
51) had received documents of Noonmati P.S. Case No. 159/2010.
His evidence does not specifically implicate A-8 of committing any
offence whatsoever.
382) Kishan Lal (PW-71), an Assistant in the LICI is a seizure
witness. He had exhibited his signatures and signatures of Sudesh
Kumar Sharma on a series of e-mails as Ext.115/654 to
Ext.115/909. However, he has not identified any particular e-mail
which implicates A-8 of committing any offence.
383) Siba Prasad Mohanty (PW-74), was the then Network
Administrator. He had exhibited recovery memos as Ext.112,
Ext.113 and Ext.167 and his signatures thereon as Ext.112/11,
Page 169 of 261
Ext.112/12, Ext.113/11, Ext.113/12, Ext.167/10, Ext.167/11 and
Ext.167/12. However, he has not identified any particular e-mail
which implicates A-8 of committing any offence.
384) Virendra Kumar (PW-78), who was then working as
Under Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs had
granted prosecution sanction in respect of A-8 as well as other co-
accused in this case. His evidence does not specifically implicate A-
8 for committing any offence whatsoever.
385) As per the evidence of Surinder Singh Bakshi (PW-79), he
took the translated e-mails (i.e. Ext.115 series) to Bangaluru to get
it authenticated by an Assistant Professor (Protected Witness no.
80), who was allegedly well versed in Manipuri language. The said
Protected Witness no. 80 was not examined in Court. The person
who had done the translation was also not examined in Court.
Thus, it has been proved from the evidence of PW-79 that the
original e-mails were not proved and instead the English translated
copies of e-mails were proved. PW-79 also does not implicate A-8
of committing any offence.
386) Aseem Srivastava (PW-80), who was one of the I.O. of
the case. He got the e-mails (Ext.115) recovered from M. Joy
Singh (A-18) and had exhibited the recovery memos (Ext.111,
Ext.112 and Ext.113), and his signature (Ext.111/7). His evidence
does not specifically implicate A-8 of committing any offence.
Page 170 of 261
387) Swayam Prakash Pani (PW-84) had exhibited disclosure
statement of A-18 as Ext.111, and his signature (Ext.111/11 and
Ext.111/12) thereon. He had taken print out of e-mails numbered
as 1 to 2781, for which recovery memo (Ext.112) was prepared
and he had exhibited his signatures (Ext.112/13 and Ext.112/14)
thereon. He had stated that those e-mails were transferred to
sterile hard disk for which recovery memo (Ext.113) was prepared
wherein Ext.113/13 and Ext.113/14 were his signatures. He had
also exhibited certificate under section 65(B) of Evidence Act as
Ext.114. He had collected dossiers of past antecedents and profiles
of A-8 (Ext.170) and few other co-accused. He had stated that A-1
to A-17 took rented accommodation at Guwahati by concealing
their original identities and occupation from landlords. He had
placed e-mails (Ext.115) in the charge-sheet. He had stated that
A-8 had received financial benefits as mentioned in E-89/11 and A-
89/13. He had also stated that e-mails exchanged by A-8 was at
D-87. Moreover, PW-84 had not exhibited any certificate as
required under section 64B of the Evidence Act to alter the status
of a "deemed document" to that of an "electronic document" It is
also seen that PW-84 has not specifically proved as to how the e-
mails prove that A-8 was involved in committing any offence.
388) In respect of electronic evidence, the evidence of PW-5,
44, 53, 71, 74, 79, 80 and 84 has been discussed hereinbefore in
paragraphs 219 to 273 of this judgment. Therefore, the discussion
on electronic evidence is not repeated herein for the sake of
brevity. It would suffice to mention here that the Court has held
Page 171 of 261
that the electronic evidence has not been duly proved in
accordance with law.
389) The learned senior counsel for A-8 had submitted that
the name of A-8 in the charge-sheet is Wayenbam Noren Singh @
Thoiba. The learned Trial Court had framed charges against A-8 in
the said name of Wayenbam Noren Singh @ Thoiba. However, the
said name does not appear in the list of officers (Ext.5/2),
exhibited by M. Baskar (PW-5). The examination report (Ext.204)
by D.P. Gangwar (PW-44) contains the name of Wahengbam
Thoiba @ Kothil and moreover, print-out of four photographs have
been exhibited as Ext.204(3) and one of those photograph is also
of Wahengbam Thoiba @ Kothil. The learned senior counsel for
the NIA and the learned DSGI have not been able to show any
evidence by the prosecution to show that Wayenbam Noren Singh
@ Thoiba and Wahengbam Thoiba @ Kothil are both same and
one person and the said person is A-8.
390) The learned senior counsel for A-8 had submitted that
the name of A-8 in the charge-sheet is Wayenbam Noren Singh @
Thoiba. The learned Trial Court had framed charges against A-8 in
the said name of Wayenbam Noren Singh @ Thoiba. However, the
said name does not appear in the list of officers (Ext.5/2),
exhibited by M. Baskar (PW-5). The examination report (Ext.204)
by D.P. Gangwar (PW-44) contains the name of Wahengbam
Thoiba @ Kothil and moreover, print-out of four photographs have
been exhibited as Ext.204(3) and one of those photograph is also
Page 172 of 261
of Wahengbam Thoiba @ Kothil. The learned senior counsel for
the NIA and the learned DSGI have not been able to show any
evidence by the prosecution to show that Wayenbam Noren Singh
@ Thoiba and Wahengbam Thoiba @ Kothil are both same and
one person and the said person is A-8.
391) From the examination of the evidence of M. Baskar (PW-
5), Someswar Dutta (PW-33) D.P. Gangwar (PW-44), Satheesh
Chand (PW-53), Siba Prasad Mohanty (PW-74), Surinder Singh
Bakshi (PW-79), as narrated herein before, it is seen that the
prosecution has failed to prove that A-8 had committed any
offence punishable under section 18 and 20 of the UA(P)A; or that
UNLF was involved in any unlawful or terrorist act; or that A-8 was
involved in any criminal conspiracy whatsoever punishable under
section 121A IPC.
(iv) Examination of evidence available against K. Jeeten
Singh @ Khomba @ Dene (A-10), appellant in Crl.A.
115/2017:
392) Appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 115/2017, namely,
Khwairakpam Jeeten Singh @ Khomba @ Dene was convicted for
committing offence punishable under sections 18 and 20 of the
UA(P)A and section 121A of the IPC. He was sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for 8 (eight) years under section 18 of UA(P)A; 7
(seven) years under section 20 of the UA(P)A, and 10 (ten) years
under section 121A of the IPC. Moreover, he was also sentenced
Page 173 of 261
to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under sections 18 and 20 of
UA(P)A and section 121A of the IPC, with default stipulation.
393) The submission from all sides was to the effect that after
serving out his sentence A-10 has since been released.
394) It may be stated that the learned Trial Court had framed
charges against A-10 under sections 120B, 121, 121A and 122 of
the IPC and sections 17, 18 and 20 of the UA(P)A.
395) Against A-10, the prosecution had relied on the evidence
of M. Baskar (PW-5); Phanidhar Das (PW-15); M.C. Arun (PW-17);
Laitonjam Rupa Singh (PW-26); Someswar Dutta (PW-33); L.
Momon Singh (PW-34); Samujjal Gautam (PW-38); Sri D.P.
Gangwar (PW-44), O. Ibomcha Singh (PW-57); Maibam Rameswar
Singh (PW-67); K. Radha Kumar Singh (PW-75); Swayam Prakash
Pani (PW-84). The documentary and material exhibits against A-10
are e-mails (Ext.5 series); bunch of photographs [Ext.18(9)];
forwarding report (Ext.75); FIR No. 63(5)/96 (Ext.86); Report
(Ext.98); e-mail (Ext.115/176) regarding arrest of A-10 and
others; e-mail (Ext.115/705) containing information of booking of
A-10 and some co-accused under NSA; attachment (Ext.115/714)
containing details about family maintenance of A-10 and some
other co-accused; detention order (Ext.175) of A-10.
396) M. Baskar (PW-5) had exhibited Ext.5 series, which was
an attachment of list of officers of UNLF, containing the names of
A-10 and he had also exhibited a bunch of photographs (Ext.18/9),
Page 174 of 261
where the photograph of Lt. Colonel Khwairakpam Khomba @
Jiten (A-10) was in Army dress. Moreover, PW-5 has also exhibited
a list of officers as (Ext.5/2), where the name of Lt. Colonel Kh.
Khomba @ Jiten is enlisted at Sl. No.7 in the list of Lt. Colonel. In
the said context, it is seen from the evidence of PW-5 that the said
print-out of photographs (Ext.18/9) and list of members (Ext.5/2)
are not supported by any certificate as required under section
64(5) of the Evidence Act to prove electronic record. It may be
mentioned here that the email dated 29.05.2009 from
[email protected] to [email protected] at Ext.5
contain attachment. The said Ext.5 is at page 16 of Paper-book
Part-II Vol-I. The said email is not a part of standard yahoo mail
page. It is a typed reproduction of the email. The said Ext.5 does
not have the standard impression contained in an email which
shows attachment appended to the said mail. As indicated above,
the said Ext.5 and the attachment marked as Ext.5/2, in the
absence of any certification under section 65B(4) of the Evidence
Act and therefore, the said exhibits no.5 and 5/2 cannot be said to
be duly proved in accordance with law. At this stage, it may be
mentioned that vide a unsigned certificate (Ext.185), it contains a
mention that the emails are in Meitei (Manipuri) language in
Roman script with its English version. Therefore, in all probability,
Ext.5 and attachment thereto are English translated copies from
Meitei language and thus, their originals have not been proved by
any witness.
Page 175 of 261
397) Laitonjam Rupa Singh (PW-26) had deposed to the effect
that Jiten (A-10) belonging to UNLF used to come to him to collect
money. In his examination-in-chief PW-26 had stated that they
last made payment to the extremist and underground groups
including UNLF was in the year 2009. However, no documentary
evidence or books of accounts of PW-26 or A-10 was exhibited to
prove that any money was handed over to A-10. In this regard,
the Court is of the considered opinion that such oral evidence
cannot be considered as an evidence of sterling quality to prove
participation of A-10 in the alleged act of extortion. The PW-26 did
not give any evidence regarding proof of date, time and quantity
of money extorted by A-10 on each occasion. Thus, vague oral
evidence is not found to be sufficient to affirm the conviction of
the appellant.
398) PW-5, namely, M. Baskar, did not prove the identify of A-
10 by any e-mail or attachment thereto. Phanidhar Das (PW-15)
and Samujjal Gautam (PW-38) had identified Jiten Singh as the
person who had taken their house on rent. Although the PW-38
had exhibited the seizure list (Ext.79), but in his cross-
examination, he had stated that he cannot say about the items
seized from A-10 and that he had signed the seizure list without
knowing its contents. Thus, PW-15 and PW-38 had not established
that A-10 was a member of UNLF.
399) M.C. Arun (PW-17) had stated that his sister Landhoni
Singh (A-14) had eloped with Jeeten Singh (A-10), who is a
Page 176 of 261
member of UNLF. It is noticed that question no. 10 during
examination of A-10 under section 313 CrPC is related to the
evidence of M.C. Arun (PW-17) that Jeeten (A-10) was a member
of UNLF, but A-10 was not examined under section 313 CrPC on
that point. Therefore, the evidence of M.C. Arun (PW-17) that
Jeeten Singh (A-10) was a member of UNLF cannot be said to be
incriminating material against A-10. The prosecution has failed to
demonstrate how by way of mere oral evidence, membership of A-
10 with UNLF was proved.
400) Laitonjam Rupa Singh (PW-26), had stated that he did not
pay any money to Indramoni, but he and one Jiten belonging to
UNLF had collected money from nominee. For the transport of
rice. It was submitted that PW-26 did not identify A-10. PW-26
had also stated that Jiten forced him to deposit money collected
from nominee in his bank account amounting to Rs.40/50 lakh. On
receiving phone call from UNLF, he had handed over the money to
Ranjit by cheque. The said part of the evidence was not proved by
exhibiting the books of accounts and/or bank statement of the firm
of PW-26 to show that they had such money and after paying
money corresponding entry has been made therein. It is also not
proved how payment of money to one Ranjit will be an
incriminating evidence against A-10.
401) In his evidence, PW-26 had stated that he can identify
Ranjit and Jiten, but he had not seen them in Court. Thus, PW-26
did not identify A-10 in Court. From the TCR, it is seen that on
Page 177 of 261
29.08.2013, Kh. Jeeten Singh (A-10) was present in the Trial
Court. However, Laitonjam Rupa Singh (PW-26), who was
examined by the prosecution on 29.08.2013, had stated that he
did not see Jeeten in Court. Therefore, PW-26 did not prove the
identity of Khwairakpam Jeeten Singh @ Khomba (A-10) as an
accused.
402) It may also be mentioned that question no.13 to A-10
during his examination under section 313 CrPC was based on the
evidence of Laitonjam Rupa Singh (PW-26), but the said witness
did not identify A-10 in the dock. In his examination under section
313 CrPC, A-10 was not asked any question with regard to his
identity. Hence, the herein before referred statement of PW-26
cannot be relied upon by the prosecution.
403) Someswar Dutta (PW-33), who had investigated
Noonmati P.S. Case No. 159/2010 had merely stated that on
19.08.2010, the O/C/. Noonmati P.S. had received information that
amongst others, A-10, UNLF member was picked-up and that they
were wanted in connection with the said case and he had had
forwarded him with other co-accused vide Ext.75. Although PW-33
had referred to various seizure lists (Ext. nos. 76, 77, 78, 61, 79,
80, 82, 57, 83, 84, 85), and seizure of Nokia mobile handsets,
being M.Ext.8 and M.Ext.9, but he did not specifically identify any
article seized from A-10.
404) PW-34, namely, L. Momon Singh had exhibited FIR No.
63(5)/96 (Ext.86). He had stated that on the basis of the said FIR,
Page 178 of 261
A-10 was arrested and one revolver with 4 (four) rounds of
ammunitions were seized from him. The prosecution did not make
any attempt to prove whether any charge-sheet was submitted
against A-10, or the outcome of trial, if any, against A-10 on the
basis of the FIR No. 63(5)/96 (Ext.86). L. Momon Singh (PW-34),
SI of Police had stated in his examination-in- chief that
Khwairakpam Jiten @ Khomba Singh (A-10) and two others were
arrested in connection with FIR dated 27.05.1996, being Heingang
Police Station Case No. 63(5)/96, under sections 121/121A IPC
and section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, and section 13 of UA(P)A.
However, in his cross-examination the said PW-34 had stated that
he had no idea whether the charge-sheet was submitted against
A-10 before the Trial Court or not and he had also stated that he
did not know about the identity of the accused persons. He had
also stated that he had no idea whether any case is pending
against him or not.
405) D.P. Gangwar (PW-44) did not specifically prove that any
particular item was seized from A-10.
406) PW-57, namely, O. Ibomcha Singh had exhibited bank
account related document, being correspondence between him
and DSP, NIA (Ext.124, Ext.125, Ext.126); statement of account of
M/s. L.I. Steel (Ext.125/3, 125/4 and 125/5); statement of account
of L. Rupa Singh (Ext.125/9 to Ext.125/19); statement of account
of Th. Jeeten Singh (Ext.125/31 to Ext.125/52); account opening
forms (Ext.126/13 to Ext.126/15, Ext.126/22 to Ext.126/24);
Page 179 of 261
specimen signature card (Ext.126/126/19, 126/20); nomination
form (Ext.126/21). Therefore, it is seen that no financial
transaction was proved by the PW-57. Moreover, from the
evidence of PW-57, no entry from any exhibited documents,
referred above, was proved to show that any money was received
in the said accounts by extortion or unlawful activity.
407) In continuation to the identification of A-10, the learned
counsel for the said accused had referred to that part of the
evidence of O. Ibomcha Singh (PW-57), where he had referred to
a person named Th. Jiten Singh and therefore, it was submitted
that the prosecution had failed to prove that A-10 was the alleged
accused in this case. Hence, it is seen that the prosecution had
introduced Th. Jiten Singh through the evidence of PW-57.
408) Maibam Rameswar Singh (PW-67) had also proved the
arrest of A-10 in connection with FIR No. 65(5)/1996 under section
121/121A of IPC 25)1-B) of Arms Act, registered on 31.05.1996.
He had stated that A-10 was arrested on 27.05.1996 along with
two other persons. The said PW-67 was examined and cross-
examined as witness on 31.03.2015. However, in his cross-
examination, PW-67 had stated that charge-sheet was not
submitted in Case No. 65(5)/1996. Therefore, for last 19 years,
charge-sheet is not shown to have been submitted in connection
with the above referred Case No. 65(5)/1996.
409) K. Radha Kumar Singh (PW-75) had exhibited the
detention order of A-10 (Ext.176) and by referring to the grounds
Page 180 of 261
of detention, it was stated that A-10 was a member and Chief
Revenue Officer of UNLF. He had also exhibited the complaint
(Ext.176/10) by Md. Chaoba, Inspector of Police. However, the
said Md. Chaoba, Inspector of Police was not examined as PW in
this case. PW-75 had exhibited the detention order (Ext.176) of A-
10. However, it is well settled principle of law that detention of a
person under preventive detention laws is merely on the basis of
satisfaction of the Executive that the detention of such person is
necessary, but in this regard, the respondents have failed to
demonstrate that how the order of preventive detention of A-10
vide Ext.176 had proved any commission of any offence by A-10.
410)
411) Swayam Prakash Pani, who was examined as PW-84, had
stated that in order to ascertain the past criminal antecedents, the
concerned State Police and Magistrate were contacted and dossier
of A-10 and some other co-accused were prepared. Satheesh
Chand (PW-53) had exhibited Ext.115/176, which was an e-mail
communication regarding arrest of A-10 and he had also exhibited
one e-mail (Ext.115/705) containing information of booking A-10
and some other co-accused under NSA and he had also exhibited
attachment (Ext.115/714) containing details about family
maintenance of A-10 and some other co-accused, which was
construed to be a strong proof of the A-10 being a member of
UNLF. The e-mail (Ext.115/705) is not a proof of commission of
any offence and moreover, it was not proved that the said e-mail
Page 181 of 261
communication was originated by A-10. It is also seen that
although the prosecution has alleged that Ext.115/705 was an
evidence of family maintenance of A-10, yet no attempt was made
by the prosecution to prove the trail for such money. Moreover,
the respondents have not been able to show how an entry made
by a person in a dossier can be construed to be a proof that UNLF
was maintaining the family of A-10. Moreover, the learned Trial
Court has not made any discussion as to how Ext.115/705 was
construed to be a book of accounts within the meaning of section
34 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
412) On the basis of e-mails (Ext.115), the learned Trial Court
had held that A-10 and some other co-accused were deeply
involved with UNLF, being in the leadership of the said outfit. The
learned Trial Court had also held that all the e-mails and
attachment retrieved on the voluntary disclosure of e-mails and
passwords of A-18 and A-19 revealed activities of UNLF and some
of its members and it was clear that A-10 and other co-accused
were involved with UNLF as members of the organisation and it
was certain that A-19 was its Chairman. It was also held that the
arrest of A-10 and materials brought on record established his
linkage with UNLF. The evidentiary value of electronic record has
already been dealt herein before, wherein it has been held that the
electronic record was not duly proved in accordance with law.
413) The learned Trial Court, on the basis of the statement of
PW-17, that A-10 was a member of UNLF and Landhoni Devi (A-
Page 182 of 261
14), his sister, had married A-10, had held that the evidence of
M.C. Arun (PW-17) was trustworthy. In this regard, the Court is of
the considered opinion that A-10 cannot be convicted merely
because the evidence of A-17 was held to be trustworthy, in the
absence of any proof by PW-17 that A-10 was a member of UNLF.
The suspicion, howsoever strong cannot partake the character of
incriminating evidence against A-10, which must prove beyond
reasonable doubt that A-10 had committed the offences with
which he has been allegedly charged.
414) In the opinion of the Court, the prosecution was required
to prove the ingredients of section 18 of the UA(P)A by
establishing that A-10 had conspired or attempted to commit, or
he had advocated, abated, advised or incited or knowingly
facilitated the commission of a terrorist act or any act preparatory
to the commission of a terrorist act. Therefore, even if the
evidence of the PW nos. 5, 15, 17, 26, 33, 34, 38, 44, 67, 75 and
84 are accepted at its face value, none the ingredients of section
18 of the UA(P)A can be said to have been proved by the
prosecution.
415) As per the provisions of section 20 of the UA(P)A, in the
opinion of the Court, the prosecution was required to prove that A-
10 is a member of UNLF, and that the said organisation is involved
in terrorist act. None of the PWs examined by the prosecution has
proved any terrorist act committed by the UNLF.
Page 183 of 261
416) Similarly, the conspiracy within the meaning of section
121A of the IPC has to be established in relation to the
commission of a particular crime/ offence, which has not been
proved and therefore, as in this case commission of offence by the
UNLF and/or by A-10 has not been proved, the Court is inclined to
hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of
conspiracy under section 121A of the IPC in so far as A-10 is
concerned.
417) The finding of the learned Trial Court that A-10 was guilty
of committing offence punishable under section 18 and 20 of
UA(P)A and section 121A of the IPC is not found sustainable and is
set aside and reversed.
(v) Examination of evidence available against Sinam
Gune Singh @ S. Gune Singh @ Boy @ Wanglem @ Little
Boy (A-11), appellant in Crl.A. 263/2016:
418) Sinam Gune Singh @ S. Gune Singh @ Boy @ Wanglen
@ Little Boy is the appellant in Crl. Appeal no. 263/2016. By the
impugned judgment, he was convicted for committing offence
punishable under sections 18 and 20 of the UA(P)A and section
121A of the IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 8
(eight) years under section 18 of UA(P)A; 7 (seven) years under
section 20 of the UA(P)A, and 10 (ten) years under section 121A
of the IPC. Apart from imprisonment, A-11 was also sentenced to
pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for committing offence under sections
Page 184 of 261
18 and 20 of UA(P) A and section 121A of the IPC with default
stipulation.
419) All sides had submitted that after serving out his
sentence, A-11 has since been released.
420) It may be stated that the learned Trial Court had framed
charges against A-11 under sections 120B, 121A, 121 and 122 of
the IPC and sections 16, 17, 18 and 20 of the UA(P)A.
421) Against A-11, the prosecution has relied on the evidence
of M. Baskar (PW-5); Someswar Dutta (PW-33), Gunadip Das (PW-
41); D.P. Gangwar (PW-44); Sri Satheesh Chand (PW-53); O.S.
Ashok (PW-64); Siba Prasad Mohanty (PW-74), K. Radha Kumar
Singh (PW-75) and Virendra Kumar (PW-78).
422) To implicate A-11, the following documents were
exhibited, viz., List of Officers of UNLF (Ext.5); e-mail dated
11.06.2010, containing attachment under subject bio-data (18
pages) from e-mal salai_taret@ yahoo.com (Ext.18); seizure list
(Ext.61); Examination report (Ext.204); retrieved e-mail account of
M. Joy Singh (A-18) from [email protected] (Ext.115/714).
423) M. Baskar (PW-5) did not prove commission of any
offence by A-11. He had exhibited an e-mail attachment under
subject "Revenue Collection Account 2007" (Ext.13) and his
signatures (Ext.13/1 to Ext.13/120) thereon. However, the e-mail
in original was not exhibited. Ext.13 is the English typed copy of
Page 185 of 261
the e-mail. The PW-5 did not prove any particular entry in Ext.13
series relating to A-11.
424) Someswar Dutta (PW-33) had stated that on 19.08.2010,
the O/c. of Noonmati P.S. had received information from M.J.
Mahanta, S.P. (Operation) that 11 persons including A-11, all
members of UNLF, were picked up and they were wanted in the
instant case. He had exhibited forwarding report (Ext.75).
Although PW-33 had exhibited various seizure lists (Ext. nos. 76,
77, 78, 61, 79, 80, 82, 57, 83, 84, 85), and seizure of Nokia
mobile handsets, being M.Ext.8 and M.Ext.9, but he did not
specifically identify any article seized from A-11.
425) Gunadip Das (PW-41) had stated in his examination-in-
chief that A-11 had visited his house which was let out to Naba
Kumar Singh and Tridip Nath. He had stated that in the midnight
of 19.08.2010, police personnel had come and arrested Naba
Kumar Singh, Tridip Nath and Gune Singh. He had identified A-11
to have stayed in his house. In his cross-examination, PW-41 had
stated that he was not present when search was made and he was
called by the police after the search was over and he had put his
signature in the seizure list (Ext.61), which was prepared by the
police, as well as his signature (Ext.61/3). He had also admitted
that none of the seized articles were illegal.
426) D.P. Gangwar (PW-44) did not specifically prove that any
particular item was seized from A-11.
Page 186 of 261
427) Satheesh Chand (PW-53) and Siba Prasad Mohanty (PW-
74) had not proved any particular e-mail which implicates A-11 for
committing any offence. The admissibility of electronic evidence
and print-out has also been dealt elsewhere in this judgment.
428) PW-64, namely, O.S. Ashok had exhibited prosecution
sanction order dated 09.02.2011 (Ext.137), signed by Virendra
Kumar, Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home
Affairs, amongst others, for A-11. Virendra Kumar (PW-78) had
also exhibited prosecution sanction order dated 09.02.2011
(Ext.137) and his signature (Ext.137/1) thereon. In his cross-
examination, PW-78 had admitted that it was true that nowhere in
Ext.137 the role of each individual accused or material against
them is disclosed. He had also admitted it to be true that the
report of the competent authority for according the prosecution
sanction is not submitted in the present case record.
429) K. Radha Kumar Singh (PW-75) had exhibited the
detention order dated 17.09.2010 of A-11 (Ext.170) as well as the
5 (five) page statement of A-11 (Ext.170/7), and his signatures
thereon. He had also exhibited the copy of FIR (Ext.170/13) and
history sheet of A-11 (Ext.170/16) and his signatures thereon.
However, it is well settled principle of law that detention of a
person under preventive detention laws is merely on the basis of
satisfaction of the Executive that the detention of such person is
necessary, but in this regard, the respondents have failed to
Page 187 of 261
demonstrate that how the order of preventive detention of A-11
vide Ext.170 had proved any commission of any offence by A-11.
430) It is seen that as per para-84 of the impugned judgment,
the learned Trial Court had held that the appellants including A-11
were not guilty of committing any terrorist act. Therefore, in order
to prove the offence under section 20 of UA(P)A, the prosecution
must prove the existence of the ingredients of section 20 of
UA(P)A.
431) In the opinion of the Court, the prosecution was required
to prove the ingredients of section 18 of the UA(P)A by
establishing that A-11 had conspired or attempted to commit, or
he had advocated, abated, advised or incited or knowingly
facilitated the commission of a terrorist act or any act preparatory
to the commission of a terrorist act. Therefore, even if the
evidence of the PW nos. 5, 33, 41, 44, 53, 74 and 75 are accepted
at its face value, none the ingredients of section 18 of the UA(P)A
can be said to have been proved by the prosecution.
432) As per the provisions of section 20 of the UA(P)A, in the
opinion of the Court, the prosecution was required to prove that A-
11 is a member of UNLF, and that the said organisation is involved
in terrorist act. None of the PWs examined by the prosecution has
proved any terrorist act committed by the UNLF.
433) Similarly, the conspiracy within the meaning of section
121A of the IPC has to be established in relation to the
Page 188 of 261
commission of a particular crime/ offence, which has not been
proved and therefore, as in this case commission of offence by the
UNLF and/or by A-11 has not been proved, the Court is inclined to
hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of
conspiracy under section 121A of the IPC in so far as A-11 is
concerned.
434) The finding of the learned Trial Court that A-11 was guilty
of committing offence punishable under section 18 and 20 of
UA(P)A and section 121A of the IPC is not found sustainable and is
set aside and reversed.
(vi) Examination of evidence available against Mutum
Ibohal Singh @ Ngamba @ Sanjay (A-12), appellant in
Crl.A. 145/2017:
435) Mutum Ibohal Singh @ Ngamba @ Sanjay (A-12) is the
appellant in Crl. Appeal no. 145/2017. By the impugned judgment,
he was convicted for committing offence punishable under
sections 18 and 20 of the UA(P)A and section 121A of the IPC. A-
12 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 8 (eight) years
under section 18 of UA(P)A and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-; 7
(seven) years under section 20 of the UA(P)A and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/-, and 10 (ten) years under section 121A of the IPC.
The sentence to pay fine was with default stipulation to undergo
further imprisonment for 1 (one) year.
Page 189 of 261
436) All sides had submitted that after serving out his
sentence, A-12 has since been released.
437) To prove the charges framed against A-12, the
prosecution had examined M. Baskar (PW-5), Someswar Dutta
(PW-33), O.S. Ashok (PW-64), Virendra Kumar (PW-78) and
Swayam Prakash Pani (PW-84).
438) M. Baskar (PW-5) did not prove commission of any
offence by A-11. He had exhibited an e-mail attachment under
subject "Revenue Collection Account 2007" (Ext.13) and his
signatures (Ext.13/1 to Ext.13/120) thereon. However, the e-mail
in original was not exhibited. Ext.13 is the English typed copy of
the e-mail. The PW-5 did not prove any particular entry in Ext.13
series relating to A-11.
439) Someswar Dutta (PW-33) had stated in his examination-
in-chief that on 19.08.2019, the O/c. Of Noonmati P.S. had
received information from M.J. Mahanta, S.P. (Operation) that 11
persons including A-12, all members of UNLF, were picked up and
they were wanted in the instant case. He had exhibited forwarding
report (Ext.75) by which 11 (eleven) persons were forwarded
before the Court. Although PW-33 had exhibited various seizure
lists (Ext. nos. 76, 77, 78, 61, 79, 80, 82, 57, 83, 84, 85), and
seizure of Nokia mobile handsets, being M.Ext.8 and M.Ext.9, but
he did not specifically identify any article seized from A-12.
Page 190 of 261
440) Satheesh Chand (PW-53) and Siba Prasad Mohanty (PW-
74) had not proved any particular e-mail which implicates A-12 for
committing any offence. The admissibility of electronic evidence
and print-out has also been dealt elsewhere in this judgment.
441) O.S. Ashok (PW-64) had exhibited prosecution sanction
order dated 09.02.2011 (Ext.137) under sections 120B, 121, 121A,
122 of IPC and under sections 16, 17, 18 and 20 of the UA(P)A,
signed by Virendra Kumar, Under Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs, amongst others, for A-12 and he had also
exhibited his signature (Ext.137/1) thereon. Virendra Kumar (PW-
78) had also exhibited prosecution sanction order dated
09.02.2011 (Ext.137) and his signature (Ext.137/1) thereon. In his
cross-examination, PW-78 had admitted that it was true that
nowhere in Ext.137 the role of each individual accused or material
against them is disclosed. He had also admitted it to be true that
the report of the competent authority for according the
prosecution sanction is not submitted in the present case record.
442) Satheesh Chand (PW-53) and Siba Prasad Mohanty (PW-
74) had not proved any particular e-mail which implicates A-12 for
committing any offence. The admissibility of electronic evidence
and print-out has also been dealt elsewhere in this judgment.
443) Swayam Prakash Pani (PW-84) had stated in his
examination-in-chief that A-1 to A-17 had taken rented
accommodation in different parts of city by concealing their
identities. He had also stated that e-mail (E-2) contains the annual
Page 191 of 261
function of A-1 to A-18. He had stated that e-mail (E-85) by A-19
regarding A-12 as he was tasked to carry out some violence.
However, no such incidence of violence by A-12 was proved by
PW-84. He had also stated that A-12 had received financial benefit
as mentioned at E-88/65, E-88/18 and E88/63, and also
mentioned at E-5/3, E-6/2, E-17/25, E-28/6, E-30/27, E-34, E-
39/4, E-40/28, E-44/3, E-45/3, E-45/10, E-48/13, E-52/10, E-94/6,
E-94/96. However, the said e-mails cannot be said to be an
admissible evidence regarding receipt of monetary benefit by A-12,
because the prosecution could not prove any corresponding entry
in the bank account or any other books of account of A-12. Thus,
the said e-mails can, at best, be said to be a unilateral e-mail by
A-19 that some money was paid to A-12. The taking of rental
accommodation by concealing true identity is not an offence under
the IPC or under the UA(P)A and A-12 was not convicted for such
offence.
444) PW-84 had exhibited E-79, which is a list of officers of
UNLF, retrieved from the e-mail ID of A-19, containing the name
of A-12 and photograph of A-12 (E-92/4 to E-92/19). He had
stated that Ext.156 pertains to A-12. In this judgment, the Court
has dealt with the non-admissibility of the e-mails (Ext.5 series
and Ext.115 series) which are electronic evidence. Thus, in this
case, the e-mails cannot be constituted to be a proof that A-12 is
or was a member of UNLF.
Page 192 of 261
445) It is seen that as per para-84 of the impugned judgment,
the learned Trial Court had held that the appellants including A-12
were not guilty of committing any terrorist act. Therefore, in order
to prove the offence under section 20 of UA(P)A, the prosecution
must prove the existence of the ingredients of section 20 of
UA(P)A.
446) In the opinion of the Court, the prosecution was required
to prove the ingredients of section 18 of the UA(P)A by
establishing that A-12 had conspired or attempted to commit, or
he had advocated, abated, advised or incited or knowingly
facilitated the commission of a terrorist act or any act preparatory
to the commission of a terrorist act. Therefore, even if the
evidence of the PW nos. 5, 33, 64, 78 and 84 are accepted at its
face value, none the ingredients of section 18 of the UA(P)A can
be said to have been proved by the prosecution.
447) As per the provisions of section 20 of the UA(P)A, in the
opinion of the Court, the prosecution was required to prove that A-
12 is/was a member of UNLF, and that the said organisation is
involved in terrorist act. None of the PWs examined by the
prosecution has proved any terrorist act committed by the UNLF.
448) Similarly, the conspiracy within the meaning of section
121A of the IPC has to be established in relation to the
commission of a particular crime/ offence, which has not been
proved and therefore, as in this case commission of offence by the
UNLF and/or by A-12 has not been proved, the Court is inclined to
Page 193 of 261
hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of
conspiracy under section 121A of the IPC in so far as A-12 is
concerned.
449) The finding of the learned Trial Court that A-12 was guilty
of committing offence punishable under section 18 and 20 of
UA(P)A and section 121A of the IPC is not found sustainable and is
set aside and reversed.
(vii) Examination of evidence available against Smt.
Landhoni Devi (A-14), appellant in Crl.A. 165/2016:
450) Smt. Landhoni Devi is the appellant in Crl. Appeal no.
165/2016. By the impugned judgment, she was convicted for
committing offence punishable under section 20 of the UA(P)A. A-
14 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 (seven) years
under section 20 of UA(P)A and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with
default stipulation to undergo further imprisonment for 1 (one)
year.
451) All sides had submitted that A-14 has almost served her
sentence and is likely to be released shortly.
452) To prove the charges framed against A-14, the
prosecution had examined Phanidhar Das (PW-15), M.C. Arun
(PW-17), Someswar Dutta (PW-33), and R.K. Napoleon Singh
(PW-70).
453) The evidence of PW-15 was to the effect that he had let
out his house to Jiten Singh (A-12), and Landhoni Devi (A-14), his
Page 194 of 261
wife used to reside there with their sons and daughter. He had
stated that Landhoni Devi had gone to Imphal with their sons and
daughter and returned on 19.08.2010. On 19.08.2010, at around
10.00 pm and 11.00 pm, some policemen had already caught Jiten
Singh (A-12) and seized lap-top, cash, mobile and other articles
vide seizure memo (Ext.42). He had also exhibited his signature
9Ext.42/1) thereon.
454) M.C. Arun, PW-17 had only stated that that his younger
sister, Landhoni Devi (A-14) had eloped with Jeeten (A-10), a
UNLF member.
455) Someswar Dutta (PW-33) had stated in his examination-
in-chief that on 19.08.2010, amongst others, Landhoni Devi was
arrested and he had exhibited the forwarding report dated
20.08.2010 (Ext.75). However, PW-33 had not exhibited any
signature contained in Ext.75.
456) R.K. Napoleon (PW-70) had stated in his evidence-in-
chief that he was informed by Krishna Kumari, elder sister of
Landhoni Devi (A-14) that she is lodged in Guwahati Jail and he
used to meet Landhoni Devi in jail.
457) Except for such statement by PW-15, PW-17, PW-33 and
PW-70, there is no other corroborative evidence to prove that A-14
was a member of UNLF, or was ever involved in any terrorist act
whatsoever.
Page 195 of 261
458) The prosecution had examined M. Baskar (PW-5) and
Satheesh Chand (PW-53). The said PWs had exhibited various e-
mails and their attachments for the purpose of establishing that all
the accused persons were members of UNLF. However, the said
PW nos. 5 and 53 had not exhibited any document to prove that
Smt. Landhoni Devi (A-14) was a member of UNLF.
459) In the opinion of the Court, to bring home the conviction
of A-14 under section 20 of the UA(P)A, the prosecution was
required to prove that A-14 is/was a member of UNLF. The
prosecution was also required to prove that the said UNLF was an
organisation which was involved in terrorist act. However, none of
the PWs examined by the prosecution has proved commission of
any terrorist act either by the UNLF or by A-14.
460) The finding of the learned Trial Court that A-14 was guilty
of committing offence punishable under section 20 of UA(P)A is
not found sustainable and is set aside and reversed.
(viii) Examination of evidence available against Oinam
Maniton Singha (A-15), appellant in Crl.A. 264/2016:
461) Oinam Maniton Singha is the appellant in Crl.A.
265/2016. By the impugned judgment, he was convicted for
committing offence punishable under section 20 of the UA(P)A. A-
15 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 (seven) years
under section 20 of UA(P)A and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with
Page 196 of 261
default stipulation to undergo further imprisonment for 1 (one)
year.
462) All sides had submitted that A-15 has served his sentence
and has since been released.
463) To prove the charges framed against A-15, the
prosecution had examined Someswar Dutta (PW-33), Akshay
Kumar Das (PW-35), Jyoti Mili (PW-36), L. Surendra Singh (PW-
48).
464) It may be stated that Someswar Dutta (PW-33) did not
state in his examination-in-chief that he had arrested O. Maniton
Singha (A-15). Rather, he had stated that on 08.09.2010, another
2 (two) UNLF members, N. Dilip Singh @ Ibochou (A-16) and
Laurenbum Jatishor @ Tilemba (A-17) were arrested. However,
during his cross-examination on behalf of A-15, he had stated that
he had arrested A-15. However, he could not say about regarding
Ext.83 and Ext.57 as it was seized by Jyoti Mili (PW-36) and not by
him and he had no knowledge about FSL report regarding those
seized articles.
465) In his examination-in-chief, Akshay Kumar Das (PW-35)
had stated that he had let out his house to A-15, who was
occupying three rooms, where he was staying with his brother till
2010. He had stated that sometime in the late hours of 2010,
police personnel came and arrested A-15. He had exhibited seizure
memo (Ext.83) by which certain items were seized and his
Page 197 of 261
signature (Ext.83/2) thereon. He had identified A-15 in Court. In
his cross-examination, PW-35 had stated that when he had signed
Ext.83, it was a blank white paper and as the police took his
signature, he can say that the police had written something there.
He had further stated that he had no knowledge what was written
in Ext.83. He had also stated that in Court, he has not seen any
article seized by the police. He had also stated that while raiding
his house, the police did not show any search warrant to him. He
does not know why police had arrested A-15.
466) Jyoti Mili (PW-36), who at the relevant time was working
as Attached Officer, Dispur P.S., had stated in his examination-in-
chief that on 08.09.2010, on receipt of information about hold-out
of UNLF militants at Survey area of Lilmil Path and Nayanpur,
Ganeshguri and accordingly, he along with staff had visited the
area and searched the house of Purna Ch. Joshi where N. Dilip
Singh (A-16) was residing as a tenant. He was taken for
interrogation and thereafter, they visited the house of Akshay Kr.
Das (PW-35) at Nayanpur, Hastinapur where Maniton Singha (A-
15) was residing as a tenant and he was also taken up for
interrogation and his room was searched and articles described in
Ext.83 was seized by him. He had stated that on the next day, the
two arrested persons including A-15 were taken to Noonmati P.S.
as there was a case pending investigation with regard to UNLF
militants and they were handed over to I/O. Someswar Dutta (PW-
33).
Page 198 of 261
467) L. Surendra Singh (PW-48) had stated in his evidence-in-
chief that in the year 1998-99, he was the Secretary, Games and
Sports in Nehru College. He was also the Vice President of the said
College. He was also the President of All Assam Manipuri Students
Union (AAMSU) during 2009-10. For doing various activities, of the
students of the Union, they required fund and they collected fund
from students, teachers and donation from public. They also got
fund from All Manipuri Students Union (AMSU). There is another
organisation covering entire North-East by name North-East
Manipuri Students Organisation (NEMSO), whose President was A-
15. He had stated that they had no relation with NEMSO. Though
the PW-48 had exhibited Ext.105, Ext.106, Ext.107 and signatures
(Ext. nos. 105/1, 105/2, 106/1, 106/2, 106/3, 107/1) thereon, but
none of the said exhibited documents relate to A-15. Thus, the
evidence of PW-48 does not incriminate A-15 in any manner
whatsoever.
468) Thus, though A-15 was charged of committing offence
punishable under section 20 of UA(P)A, but there is no oral
evidence against him. There is no other corroborative evidence to
prove that A-15 was a member of UNLF, or that he was ever
involved in any terrorist act whatsoever, or that UNLF had
committed any terrorist act.
469) The prosecution had examined Someswar Dutta (PW-33),
Akshay Kumar Das (PW-35), Jyoti Mili (PW-36) and L. Surendra
Singh (PW-48) to prove charges framed against A-15. However,
Page 199 of 261
the said PWs had failed to prove existence of any ingredients of
section 20 of UA(P)A against A-15. In the opinion of the Court, to
bring home the conviction of A-15 under section 20 of the UA(P)A,
the prosecution was required to prove that A-15 is/was a member
of UNLF. The prosecution was also required to prove that the said
UNLF was an organisation that was involved in terrorist act.
However, none of the PWs examined by the prosecution in respect
of A-15 had proved commission of any terrorist act either by the
UNLF or by A-15.
470) The finding of the learned Trial Court that A-15 was guilty
of committing offence punishable under section 20 of UA(P)A is
not found sustainable and is liable to set aside and reversed.
(ix) Examination of evidence available against N. Dilip
Singh @ Ibochou @ Mani (A-16), appellant in Crl.A.
113/2017:
471) N. Dilip Singh @ Ibochou @ Mani (A-16) is the appellant
in Crl. Appeal no. 113/2015. By the impugned judgment, he was
convicted for committing offence punishable under section 18 and
20 of the UA(P)A and section 121A of the IPC. He was sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for 8 (eight) years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- under section 18 of the UA(P)A; to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
under section 20 of UA(P)A; and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
under section 121A of the IPC. The sentence of payment of fine of
Page 200 of 261
Rs.10,000/- each was with default stipulation to undergo further
imprisonment for 1 (one) year.
472) All sides had submitted that A-16 has served his sentence
and has been since released.
473) To prove the charges framed against A-16, the
prosecution had examined Bijoy Krishna Das (PW-6), Indubhusan
Kongkham (PW-7), Nitendra Tumung (A-13), Smt. Ambika Sharma
(PW-25), Sri Jyoti Mili (PW-36), Satheesh Chand (PW-53), K.
Radha Kumar Singh (PW-75).
474) Bijoy Krishna Das (PW-6) and Nitendra Tumung (A-13),
both claim that they were the landlord of A-16 and they had
deposed about the arrest of A-16 by the police. There is no
explanation how A-16 could be arrested from house of two
landlords at the same time. The PW-6 and PW-13 had both
exhibited the seizure list (Ext.31) and their signature (Ext.31/1 and
Ext.31/2) thereon.
475) The prosecution had also examined Indubhusan
Kongkham (PW-7), who had stated in his examination-in-chief that
in the later part of the year 2008, he had met his friend Oinam
Samarjit Singh (A-7) at Guwahati who introduced him to Dilip
Singh @ Mani (A-16) and discussed about sending students to
China. The prosecution has failed to prove that discussion by A-16
to send students to China is a terrorist act within the meaning of
UA(P)A.
Page 201 of 261
476) The learned senior counsel for the NIA had submitted
that oral evidence of Indubhusan Kongkham (PW-7) was sufficient
to incriminate and convict A-16 because of his link to R.K. Meghen
(A-19), the Chairman of UNLF was established as A-16 had met A-
19 at Kathmandu, Nepal. It was submitted that PW-7 had proved
by his oral evidence that O. Samarjit Singh (A-7) had told him that
he had joined UNLF and had also invited him to join UNLF and that
A-7 had introduced PW-7 to A-16 and A-16 introduced PW-7 to M.
Joy Singh (A-18). Accordingly, it was submitted that link of A-16
on the basis of evidence of PW-7 was established with A-7, A-18
and A-19 and their membership of UNLF was also established. The
Court is unable to accept the said submission because even
assuming that (i) A-7 had met R.K. Meghen, Chairman, UNLF in
Kathmandu, Nepal; and (ii) A-7 had introduced PW-7 to A-16 and
A-16 had introduced PW-7 to A-18, it cannot be presumed that A-
16 had become members of UNLF. Nonetheless, the prosecution
had failed to prove the entry of A-7 and A-16 into Nepal and China
in the year 2018.
477) Assuming that the evidence of PW-7 can be read as an
extra judicial confession of A-7 that he had joined UNLF, but still
some more corroborative evidence was required to be proved for
holding that A-7 had joined UNLF and a mere oral evidence that
some accused has admitted his guilt before another person cannot
be read as a proof of guilt.
Page 202 of 261
478) The PW-7 had handed over 4 (four) documents to the
I.O., for which he had exhibited the seizure list (Ext.32) and his
signature (Ext.32/1) thereon. None of the documents incriminate
A-16.
479) PW-13 had admitted that Ext.31 was a photocopy.
Nitendra Tumung (PW-13) had exhibited the arrest memo of A-16
as Ext.40 and his signature (Ext.40/1) thereon. However, PW-13,
in his cross-examination, had stated that the arrest memo of A-16
was not issued when he was arrested from his building. From the
evidence of PW nos. 6 and 13, it cannot be said that the articles
seized from A-16 vide Ext.31 contained anything which is illegal.
480) Smt. Ambika Sharma (PW-25) also claims to be the
landlady of A-16. She had stated that A-16 was arrested and
brought to the room let out to A-16 and she had exhibited the
seizure list (Ext.57) by which the I.O. had seized 35 articles
including laptop, mobile sets, pen-drive, data card, ATM card,
Rs.3,65,000/- in cash, and 35 nos. of CDs. He had also exhibited
his signature (Ext.57/1), the signature of Hemlal Joshi, his brother-
in-law (Ext.57/2) and signature of A-16 (Ext.57/3).
481) Jyoti Mili (PW-36), who was the then Attached Officer of
Dispur P.S. had stated in his examination-in-chief that he had
arrested A-16 from the house of Purna Ch. Joshi, where A-16 was
residing as a tenant. The said landlord appears to have not been
examined. According to PW-36, Ext.57 is the seizure list of articles
seized from the tenanted house of A-16 under the said Purna Ch.
Page 203 of 261
Joshi and it may be mentioned that PW-36 had not exhibited his
signature on Ext.57. In his cross-examination. PW-36 had admitted
that A-16 was arrested from the Guwahati Railway Station at
Paltan Bazar. Thus, it appears that A-16 was arrested on multiple
locations on the same day. PW-36 had admitted that none of the
articles seized vide Ext.57 was prohibited articles.
482) The prosecution has submitted that by his evidence,
Satheesh Chand (PW-53) had duly proved all the emails which
squarely implicated A-16 of being associated with UNLF, his
participation in the conspiracy against the Country in furtherance
of terrorist act. In connection with the discussion of electronic
evidence, it has been held that Ext.115 series which was exhibited
by PW-53 were merely English translation of the emails and
therefore, none of the emails which were downloaded from the
email of M. Joy Singh (A-18) was the primary evidence of the
contents of email which were in Meitei language. Accordingly, the
electronic evidence in respect to emails had all been discarded as
an admissible evidence while discarding electronic evidence in
paragraph nos. 216 to 284 above.
483) At the relevant time, K. Radha Kumar Singh (PW-75) was
the District Magistrate, Imphal West and had issued detention
order (Ext.180) against A-16, and he had also exhibited his
signatures thereon, grounds of detention (Ext.180/2), statement of
A-16 (Ext.180/6), complaint (Ext.180/11), FIR (Ext.180/13) and
history sheet (Ext.180/15). In his cross-examination, PW-75 had
Page 204 of 261
admitted that Ext.170 to 181 were not the original documents. He
had also admitted that detention orders are basically for the
maintenance of public order. Thus, the detention order (Ext.180)
of A-16 does not prove that there was any actual commission of a
terrorist act by the said accused.
484) The admissibility of electronic evidence vide e-mails
exhibited as Ext.5 (series) and Ext.115 (series) has been discussed
in this judgment and it has been held that the said electronic
documents are not admissible in evidence. The said finding is
relevant for the A-16 also.
485) Bijoy Krishna Das (PW-6), Indubhusan Kongkham (PW-
7), Nitendra Tumung (A-13), Smt. Ambika Sharma (PW-25), Sri
Jyoti Mili (PW-36), Satheesh Chand (PW-53), K. Radha Kumar
Singh (PW-75), who were examined by the prosecution had failed
to prove existence of any ingredients of section 18 and 20 of
UA(P)A and section 121A against A-16. In the opinion of the Court,
to bring home the conviction of A-16 under Section 18 of the
UA(P)A, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the appellants herein had conspired or had attempted
to commit a terrorist act; (ii) that he/she had advocated, abetted,
advised or has incited a terrorist act; and/or (iii) directed or
knowingly facilitated the commission of terrorist act or that the
appellants had committed any act preparatory to the commission
of a terrorist act.
Page 205 of 261
486) To bring home the conviction of A-16 under section 20 of
the UA(P)A, the prosecution was required to prove that A-16
is/was a member of UNLF. The prosecution was also required to
prove that the said UNLF was a terrorist gang or organisation that
was involved in terrorist act. However, none of the PWs examined
by the prosecution in respect of A-16 had proved commission of
any terrorist act either by the UNLF or by A-16. The prosecution
has also failed to prove that A-16 was involved in any criminal
conspiracy whatsoever punishable under section 121A IPC.
487) The finding of the learned Trial Court that A-16 was guilty
of committing offence punishable under section 18 and 20 of
UA(P)A and 121A of the IPC is not found sustainable and the said
finding is liable to be set aside and reversed.
(x) Examination of evidence available against Laurenbum
Jatishor Singh @ Tilemba (A-17), appellant in Crl. Appeal
No. 299/2015:
488) Laurenbum Jatishor Singh @ Tilemba (A-17) is the
appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 299/2016. He has been convicted for
committing offence under section 18 and 20 of UA(P)A and section
121A of the IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 8
(eight) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 18 of
the UA(P)A; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 20 of UA(P)A; and
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a
fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 121A of the IPC. The sentence of
Page 206 of 261
payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- each was with default stipulation to
undergo further imprisonment for 1 (one) year.
489) All sides had submitted that A-17 has served his sentence
and has been since released.
490) To prove the charges framed against A-17, the
prosecution had examined Smti. Laurembam Ibeyaima (PW-72),
and Sri K. Radha Kumar Singh (PW-75).
491) Smti. Laurembam Ibeyaima (PW-72) is the wife of A-17,
to whom she had married in the year 2006. In her examination-in-
chief she had stated that when she was in a hospital in the year
2009, the expenditure of her treatment was borne by A-17 and
family members and she had also stated that when she was in
hospital for the delivery of her child, she came to know that A-17
was arrested and after some time, she had visited Central Jail,
Guwahati to meet her husband. She had also stated that her
husband was doing business of selling small articles. PW-72 was
not cross-examined by the defence. Thus, PW-72 did not implicate
A-17 for committing any offence.
492) K. Radha Kumar Singh (PW-75), who was the then
District Magistrate of Imphal West had exhibited the detention
order of A-17 (Ext.181) and his signatures thereon. By referring to
the grounds of detention (Ext.181/2), it was stated that A-17 was
a member of the banned UNLF and belonged to 7th batch and
received training in Upper Burma with effect from 01.01.1994 and
Page 207 of 261
he was arrested on 25.06.1996 and released on bail on 30.04.1997
and was again arrested on 27.07.2007 by Assam Rifles and it was
stated that A-17 was involved in heinous crimes like murder,
dacoity, robbery, extortion and kidnapping for ransom. The
statement of A-17 (Ext.181/6) was exhibited. The PW-75 had
exhibited the complaint (Ext.181/11) of M. Maipak Singh,
Inspector of Manipur Police; the copy of FIR (Ext.181/13); and the
history sheet (Ext.181/15) of A-17. However, the said M. Maipak
Singh was not examined as PW in this case. In his cross-
examination, PW-75 had admitted that Ext.181 were not the
original documents and had also admitted that the detention order
was passed under section 3(2) of the NSA Act, 1980 which is
basically for the maintenance of public order.
493) In connection with the evidence of PW-75, The Court is
inclined to hold that detention of a person under preventive
detention laws is merely on the basis of satisfaction of the
Executive that the detention of such person is necessary. The
Court is also inclined to hold that as the prosecution did not
examine any victim of the offence allegedly committed by A-17,
the respondents have failed to demonstrate that how the order of
preventive detention of A-17 vide Ext.181 had proved any
commission of any offence by A-17.
494) Thus, the prosecution witnesses, namely, Smti.
Laurembam Ibeyaima (PW-72), and Sri K. Radha Kumar Singh
(PW-75) did not prove the existence of any ingredients of section
Page 208 of 261
18 and 20 of UA(P)A and section 121A of the IPC against A-17.
The PWs examined by the prosecution in respect of A-17 had not
proved (i) commission of any terrorist act by A-17; (ii) commission
of any terrorist act by the UNLF; (iii) that A-17 was a member of
UNLF, a terrorist organisation; and (iv) that A-17 was involved in
any criminal conspiracy whatsoever punishable under section 121A
IPC.
495) The finding of the learned Trial Court that A-17 was guilty
of committing offence punishable under section 18 and 20 of
UA(P)A and 121A of the IPC is not found sustainable and is
therefore, liable to be set aside and reversed.
(xi) Examination of evidence available against Y.
Brajabidhu Singh (A-24), appellant in Crl. Appeal No.
291/2016; and A. Ibomcha @ A. Ibomcha Singh (A-25),
appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 295/2016:
496) As common evidence is in respect of Y. Brajabidhu Singh
(A-24) and A. Ibomcha @ A. Ibomcha Singh (A-25), their appeals
have been examined together. The discussion in this order also
refers to accused N. Bomi Singh (A-23), whose appeal being Crl.A.
No. 169/2016, has abated on his death.
497) Y. Brajabidhu Singh (A-24) is the appellant in Crl. Appeal
No. 291/2016 and A. Ibomcha @ A. Ibomcha Singh (A-25) is the
appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 295/2016. It has been submitted at
the bar by the learned counsel for the said appellant that as per
Page 209 of 261
unconfirmed information, the said appellant has expired. However,
the learned counsel for the said appellant has submitted that he
does not have any written instructions or death certificate to
support his statement.
498) The said appellants have been convicted for committing
offence punishable under section 20 and 21 of the UA(P)A.
Accordingly, under section 20 of the UA(P)A, Y. Brajabidhu Singh
(A-24) and A. Ibomcha @ A. Ibomcha Singh (A-25) were each
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 7
(seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default
stipulation and for the offence committed under section 21 of the
UA(P)A, they were also sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a term of 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of
Rs.20,000/- with default stipulation.
499) All sides had submitted that the said A-23 is deceased
and A-24 and A-25 have served their sentence and have been
since released.
500) To prove the charges framed against A-24 and A-25, the
prosecution had examined (i) Ak. Ibochouba Singh (PW-23), (ii)
Rakesh Kumar Jain (PW-24); (iii) N. Holland Singh (PW-29), (iv) B.
Haridas Sarma (PW-43), (v) O.S. Ashok (PW-66), (vi) Ravi
Gambhir (PW-77), and (vii) Surinder Singh Bakshi (PW-79).
501) Ak. Ibochouba Singh (PW-23) was working with IUCB. In
his examination-in-chief, he had stated that Association for
Page 210 of 261
Extensive Growers Initiative Service (AEGIS for short) was having
a current account no. 22/1318 in their bank. The account was
opened and operated by Y. Brajabidhu Singh (A-24), President; N.
Bomi Singh (A-23), Secretary (since deceased); and A. Ibomcha
Singh (A-25), Treasurer. PW-23 has referred to financial
transaction made in the said account and that loan of Rs.50.00
lakh that was sanctioned on 10.07.2005 against term deposit of
Rs.25.00 lakh, Rs.20.00 lakh and Rs.20.00 lakh (total Rs.65.00
lakh) was repaid in full on 16.08.2005 by adjustment of term
deposits within a period of 14 days. He had exhibited bank
account opening documents and signatures as Ext.48, 48/1 to
48/7, statement of account (Ext.49); loan account statement for
the period from 30.07.2005 to 16.08.2005 (Ext.50); loan sanction
letter (Ext.51) and signature (Ext.51/1) and other documents and
signatures (Ext.51/2 to 51/6); seizure memo (Ext.52) and his
signature (Ext.52/1) thereon. He had also exhibited pay-in-slips
(Ext.53, 53/1 to 53/7), statement (Ext.53/8), and cheques (Ext.54,
54/1 to 54/9), and statement of withdrawal (Ext.53/10). In his
cross-examination, PW-23 had stated that the closure of loan
account by adjustment against term deposit was permissible within
the norms of the bank. He had also stated that A-23 (since
deceased), A-24 and A-25 were good customers of his bank and
all of them were reputed businessmen. Thus, no incriminating
materials are culled out against A-23 (since deceased) from the
evidence of PW-23. The prosecution has not proved that any law
in force or any banking procedure was violated by AEGIS by
Page 211 of 261
returning loan of Rs.50.00 lakh within 14 days by adjusting their
fixed deposit receipt.
502) Rakesh Kumar Jain (PW-24), who was a Chartered
Account and had examined and audited the books of accounts of
AEGIS for the financial year 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 had
stated in his examination-in-chief that one of the machinery was
installed in a shed which was under construction. He had stated
that some contributions were not supported by proper documents.
Loan of bigger amount by AEGIS was not repaid. He had stated
that after 2008, AEGIS did not come to their firm and he cannot
say how they managed the firm. He had proved seizure memo
(Ext.55 and Ext.55/1) of documents of AEGIS and his signature
(Ext.55/2) thereon. He had stated that his firm had conducted
audit of Pineapple Processing Unit at Matai and not regarding
other activities. In his cross-examination, PW-24 had stated that
he had come across documents/ communications between Union
Government and AEGIS regarding the equity subscription, subsidy,
etc. Concerning Food Processing Unit of AEGIS which shows
substantial financial assistance from the Central Government to
AEGIS which was transferred to the accounts of AEGIS by the
Central Government. In his re-examination, A-24 had exhibited
memo (Ext.56) of handing over documents pertaining to AEGIS as
mentioned therein and his signature (Ext.56/3) thereon. The
documents and signatures were also exhibited as Ext.56/2 to
Ext.17), receipts and payments account (Ext.55) and his signature
and signature of A-23 (since deceased) (Ext.55/2 to 55/30)
Page 212 of 261
thereon. He had stated that in the column receipts, unsecured
loans from friends and relatives of Rs.15.00 lakh, membership
subscription of Rs.8.00 lakh could not be substantiated by the
party. From such statement of PW-24, it cannot be presumed that
merely because loans and membership subscription could not be
substantiated, the said money was funded by UNLF. As a charter
accountant, if he found certain discrepancy in the balance sheet of
the AEGIS, he should have recorded it in the auditor's note, which
was not done. Therefore, an oral statement of PW-24 where there
is no note in the audited balance sheet cannot partake the
character of a proof that AEGIS was a front of UNLF or that the
money which could not be substantiated belong to UNLF. It is well
settled that presumption, howsoever strong cannot be read as a
proof.
503) As regards evidence of PW-24, the installation of
machinery in under-construction shed is not an act of terrorism
and does not prove that it was funded by act of terrorism of UNLF.
No particular entry was exhibited to show that it was not
supported by proper document. Non-payment of loan amount does
not prove that AEGIS was funded by UNLF. The lack of explanation
regarding receipts, unsecured loans and subscription also does not
prove that a sum of Rs.15.00 lakh and Rs.8.00 lakh were proceeds
of terrorist act committed by UNLF.
504) N. Holland Singh (PW-29) was a witness to the arrest and
search in respect of A-23 (since deceased), A-24 and A-25. He had
Page 213 of 261
exhibited the arrest memo and search memos of A-23 (since
deceased) (Ext.67 & Ext.68) and his signatures thereon; arrest
memo and search memos of A-25 (Ext.63 & Ext.62) and his
signatures thereon; and arrest memo and search memos of A-24
(Ext.64 & Ext.65), and his signatures thereon. Thus, no
incriminating materials are culled out against A-23 (since
deceased) from the evidence of PW-29.
505) B. Haridas Sarma (PW-43), had joined AEGIS as after he
had retired as Director, Agriculture, Govt. of Manipur. He was then
working as President of the Executive Committee till the society
was closed by NIA. Before he became the President, A-24 was the
President. He had stated that the initial capital of AEGIS was
Rs.197.00 lakh, which was later revised to Rs.206.00 lakh. A sum
of Rs.50.00 lakh was taken as loan from IUCB when A-24 was the
President, which was not utilized and returned. He had stated
'they' have arms with them, but A-43 had not disclosed the name
of anyone with arms. He had stated that A-24 was related to a
member of UNLF. He had given a statement before Magistrate, 1st
Class, Kamrup, Guwahati on 24.05.2011 (Ext.93) under section
164 CrPC., and his signatures (Ext.93/1 and 93/2) thereon. He had
also exhibited attachment notice to AEGIS (Ext.94) and his
signatures (Ext.94/1, 94/2 and 93/3) thereon. He had also
exhibited notice under section 25(1) of UA(P)A to A-23 (since
deceased) (Ext.95) and his signature (Ext.95/1) as token of receipt
of notice. He had also exhibited statement of accounts (Ext.96) of
AEGIS prepared by Chartered Accountant for the period from
Page 214 of 261
16.06.2006 to 31.03.2007 and the signatures of A-24 (Ext.96/1 to
96/6). In his cross-examination, PW-43 had stated that AEGIS had
received long term loan of Rs.28.00 lakh from Ministry of
Agriculture and Ministry of Food Processing on approval of their
project and a further sum of Rs.56.00 lakh was received as grant.
He had personally visited Delhi to meet officials of concerned
Ministries for availing such funds and loans. He does not know
how loan from IUCB was managed, but he was told that it was for
book-keeping. He had also stated that while proceeding towards
the Court, he was briefed by the Bakshi, DSP, NIA about the
statement to be given before the Magistrate and after giving his
statement, he was escorted back by the said police officer. In his
cross, he was confronted with his statement under section 164
CrPC that "Now in 2011, I came to know that all these three
aforesaid named three people have link with United National
Liberation Front (UNLF) and they invested money of this UNLF into
our Food Processing scheme of AEGIS", to which he had replied
that he did not actually said the said portion of statement to the
Magistrate. He had also stated that he cannot remember if his
statement under section 164 CrPC was read over to him by the
Magistrate. He had also stated that he does not remember the
name of UNLF member with whom Brajabidhu Singh (A-24) is
related. Thus, no incriminating materials are culled out against A-
24 from the evidence of PW-43. From the evidence of PW-43, the
prosecution has proved that AEGIS had received funds from the
Central Government through Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of
Page 215 of 261
Food Processing, which cannot be said to be a fund provided by
UNLF through terrorist act.
506) Satheesh Chand, who was examined as PW-53 had
exhibited emails as Ext.115 (series). However, he did not prove
the contents of any of the documents exhibited. Through one of
such email, it is sought to be projected that the accounts of AEGIS
was being monitored by UNLF leadership. None of the emails
exhibited as Ext.115 (series) are the print-out of the original mail.
In this regard, it may be restated that vide Ext.185 unsigned
certificate, the prosecution has proved that the emails were in
Meitei language, whereas none of the emails exhibited as Ext.115
series are in Meitei language, but they are English typed version,
which is not in the usual email format of the service provider.
Moreover, none of the witnesses have given evidence to the effect
that A-24, A-25 had ever indulged in extortion of money. Similarly,
none of the 84 PWs examined by the prosecution have been able
to give any documentary evidence that AEGIS was funded by
UNLF or any proceeds of terrorism could be identified out of the
assets of AEGIS.
507) O.S. Ashok (PW-64), who at the relevant time was
working as Under Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt.
of India, had signed the prosecution sanction for prosecution of N.
Bomi Singh (A-23) (since deceased), Y. Brajabidhu Singh (A-24)
and A. Ibomcha @ A. Ibomcha Singh (A-25) under section 120,
121A of IPC and under section 18 read with 17, 20 and 21 of the
Page 216 of 261
UP(A)A, being the authorized officer to accord sanction and he had
exhibited the sanction order dated 01.03.2012 (Ext.136) and his
signature (Ext.136/1) thereon. For other co-accused, he had
exhibited the sanction order dated 09.02.2011 (Ext.137) and his
signature (Ext.137/1) thereon. He had admitted that the report of
the competent authority for recommendation of the prosecution
sanction (Ext.136) is not a part of the case record.
508) Ravi Gambhir (PW-66), was in deputation to NIA during
the relevant time. In his examination-in-chief, he had stated that
on the strength of search warrant, he had assisted S.S. Bakshi,
DSP in conduct of the search of the premises of AEGIS on
27.04.2011 and seized certain documents mentioned therein and
he had exhibited the search list (Ext.140) and his signature
(Ext.140/1 and Ext.140/2) and signature of S.S. Bakshi (Ext.140/3
and Ext.140/4) thereon, which he knew. The seizure of documents
cannot lead to a presumption that the documents are incriminating
against any particular accused person.
509) Dharmendra Sharma (PW-77), who was then posted as
Joint Secretary (Internal Security-1), Ministry of Home Affairs,
Govt. Of India had stated that he was the Designated Authority
under UA(P)A vide MHA notification dated 15.04.2011. In his
examination-in-chief, he had stated that S.P. Pani, I/O., NIA had
intimated him that of two separate seizure of cash of Rs.17.00
lakh in August, 2011 and attachment of properties of AEGIS in
November, 2011. Regarding seizure of cash, he had exhibited an
Page 217 of 261
order dated 18.08.2011 (Ext.88) and his signature (Ext.88/1)
thereon, by which he had confirmed that the I/O had informed of
the seizure of cash suspected to be proceeds of terrorism within
48 hours of the seizure being made and for retention of cash. He
had stated that the said order was passed after inspection and
confirmation of cash amount in his office and he had also stated
that the copy of the said order was directed to be served to every
party for appeal, if any, against the same and had exhibited memo
dated 18.08.2011 of inspection and confirmation of seizure of cash
(Ext.182) under section 25(5) of UA(P)A and his signature
(Ext.182/1) thereon. He had exhibited fax message dated
11.11.2011 received from S.P. Pani, I/O. Regarding involvement of
AEGIS with UNLF (Ext.183). He had also stated that on receipt of
information from I/O that property of AEGIS is suspected of being
proceeds of terrorism of UNLF, a notice dated 24.11.2011, under
section 25 of UA(P)A was issued to AEGIS giving two weeks (15
days) time to make representation against proposed attachment of
properties of AEGIS. He had stated that considering that N. Bomi
Singh (A-23) (since deceased) had acknowledged receipt of the
said memorandum on 08.12.2011 and he had stated that he had
no comment to offer, by order dated 29.12.2011 (Ext.184), he had
confirmed the attachment of properties of AEGIS and his signature
(Ext.184/1) thereon. In the considered opinion of the Court, the
said evidence of PW-77 does not prove that any movable and
immovable properties of AEGIS were out of the proceeds of any
terrorist act by UNLF.
Page 218 of 261
510) Surinder Singh Bakshi (PW-79), at the relevant time was
the I.O. of the case from April, 2011 till filing of the charge-sheet.
In his examination-in-chief, he had stated that during
investigation, he had assisted Swayam Prakash Pani, IPS, SP, NIA.,
who was the Chief Investigating Officer. On 10.01.2012, he had
arrested A-23 (since deceased), A-24 and A-25 in course of
investigation and had assisted S.P. Pani in the attachment of the
properties of AEGIS which were funded by UNLF from the
proceeds of terrorism, and had exhibited the memorandum for
attachment (Ext.94) under section 25 of the UA(P)A and his
signature (Ext.94/4 to Ext.94/7) thereon. He had also exhibited
seizure memo dated 10.11.2011 (Ext.56) of documents from
Rakesh Kumar Jain, Partner of D.K. Vohra & Co., Chartered
Accountant of AEGIS and his signature (Ext.56/18). In the opinion
of the Court, this evidence of PW-79 does not incriminate AEGIS or
Y. Brajabidhu Singh (A-24) and A. Ibomcha @ A. Ibomcha Singh
(A-25).
511) The PW-24 and PW-43 also prove that AEGIS, amongst
others, was funded by Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Food
Processing, to the extent of Rs.28.00 lakh and Rs.56.00 lakh,
which cannot be said to be funded by UNLF out of proceeds of
terrorist act.
512) Thus, the prosecution witnesses, namely, (i) Ak.
Ibochouba Singh (PW-23), (ii) Rakesh Kumar Jain (PW-24), (iii) N.
Holland Singh (PW-29), (iv) B. Haridas Sarma (PW-43), (v) O.S.
Page 219 of 261
Ashok (PW-66), (vi) Ravi Gambhir (PW-77), and (vii) Surinder
Singh Bakshi (PW-79) do not prove the existence of any
ingredients of sections 20 and 21 of the UA(P)A against A-24 and
A-25. The PWs examined by the prosecution in respect of the said
appellants had not proved (i) commission of any terrorist act by
the appellants; (ii) that UNLF had committed any terrorist act; (iii)
that any particular immovable or movable property of AEGIS was
funded by UNLF from out of proceeds of terrorist act; (iv) that A-
24 and A-25 were the member of UNLF, a terrorist organisation;
and (v) that A-24 and A-25 were knowingly holding any property
derived or obtained from commission of any terrorist act or
acquired through the terrorist fund.
513) One of the submissions made on behalf of the learned
counsel for the petitioner was that in para-83 of the judgment of
the learned trial Court, A-24 was held guilty twice under section 20
of the UA(P)A, but in the judgment, there is no finding that A-25
was guilty of committing offence under section 20 of the UA(P)A
and accordingly, it was submitted that A-25 cannot be said to have
been convicted under section 20 of the UA(P)A. The said
submission is without any merit in view of the provisions of section
465 CrPC, which provides that no finding or sentence or order
passed by a Court shall be reversed by a Court of appeal on
account of any error, omission or irregularity in the judgment and
order. It may be mentioned here that in paragraph-82 of the
judgment of the learned trial Court, A. Ibomcha Singh (A-25), who
is the appellant in Crl.A. 295/2016 was held to be guilty of
Page 220 of 261
committing offence under section 20 of the UA(P)A. Therefore, the
mentioning of A-24 guilty under section 20 of the UA(P)A twice is
only a typing error which does not vitiate the judgment or the
finding of the learned trial Court in paragraph-82 of the impugned
judgment.
514) The finding of the learned Trial Court that A-24 and A-25
were guilty of committing offence punishable under section 20 and
21 of the UA(P)A is not found sustainable and the same is liable to
be set aside and reversed.
Decision of point of determination no.(a):
515) For deciding the point of determination no. (a), it would
be appropriate to refer to the provision of section 18 and 20 of the
UA(P)A is quoted below:-
18. Punishment for conspiracy, etc.-- Whoever
conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises or
incites, directs or knowingly facilitates the commission of, a
terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist
act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment
for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
20. Punishment for being member of terrorist gang or
organisation.--Any person who is a member of a terrorist gang
or a terrorist organisation, which is involved in terrorist act, shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
516) Thus, from the plain reading of the provisions of section
20 of the UA(P)A, there appears to be no ambiguity that the said
Page 221 of 261
provision has two parts. Firstly, that a person must be a member
of a terrorist gang or a terrorist organisation. Secondly, the said
terrorist gang or a terrorist organisation is involved in terrorist act.
517) It is trite law that in cases where penal prosecution under
IPC and UA(P)A is involved, the evidence must prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the appellants herein have committed any
offence. In the present case in hand, these two essential
ingredients of offence under section 20 of UA(P)A is not found to
be proved by any of the PWs against appellants herein being,
Sougaijam Rakesh Singh (A-6), O. Samarjit Singh @ Naresh @
Kadeng (A-7), W. Noren Singh @ W. Noren Meetei @ Thoiba (A-
8), Khwairakpam Jeeten Singh @ Khomba @ Dene (A-10), Sinam
Gune Singh @ S. Gune Singh @ Boy @ Wanglem @ Little Boy (A-
11), Mutum Ibohal (A-12), Mrs. Landhoni Devi (A-14), Oinam
Maniton Singha (A-15), N. Dilip Singh @ Ibochou @ Mani (A-16),
Laurenbum Jatishor Singh (A-17), Y. Brajabidhu Singh (A-24), A.
Ibomcha @ A. Ibomcha Singh (A-25. As they have not been
proved to be the members of UNLF, a terrorist organisation, the
above named appellants are held to be not guilty of offence under
section 20 of the UA(P)A. They are liable to be and are
accordingly, acquitted of all charge under section 20 of UA(P)A.
518) It may also be mentioned that while discussing the
appeal of the following appellants, namely, Sougaijam Rakesh
Singh (A-6), O. Samarjit Singh @ Naresh @ Kadeng (A-7), W.
Noren Singh @ W. Noren Meetei @ Thoiba (A-8), Khwairakpam
Page 222 of 261
Jeeten Singh @ Khomba @ Dene (A-10), Sinam Gune Singh @ S.
Gune Singh @ Boy @ Wanglem @ Little Boy (A-11), Mutum Ibohal
(A-12), Mrs. Landhoni Devi (A-14), Oinam Maniton Singha (A-15),
N. Dilip Singh @ Ibochou @ Mani (A-16), Laurenbum Jatishor
Singh (A-17), it has also been held that they have not proved to
have committed any offence within the meaning of section 18 of
UA(P)A.
519) Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge
against the aforenamed appellants under section 18 of UA(P)A
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, Sougaijam Rakesh Singh (A-
6), O. Samarjit Singh @ Naresh @ Kadeng (A-7), W. Noren Singh
@ W. Noren Meetei @ Thoiba (A-8), Khwairakpam Jeeten Singh @
Khomba @ Dene (A-10), Sinam Gune Singh @ S. Gune Singh @
Boy @ Wanglem @ Little Boy (A-11), Mutum Ibohal (A-12), Mrs.
Landhoni Devi (A-14), Oinam Maniton Singha (A-15), N. Dilip
Singh @ Ibochou @ Mani (A-16), Laurenbum Jatishor Singh (A-17)
are acquitted of charge under section 18 of the UA(P)A.
520) Accordingly, the point of determination (a) as framed
under paragraph no. 210 hereinbefore is decided in the negative
and in favour of the appellant.
Decision on point of determination no. (b):
521) In light of the discussion of the various witnesses
examined by the prosecution, it has not been proved that UNLF
had committed any terrorist act for which the appellants have
Page 223 of 261
been charged. There is also no evidence that any of the appellants
in this case have been proved to be a member of the UNLF, which
is a terrorist organization. Therefore, merely because the name of
UNLF is entered in the first schedule, unless the prosecution is
able to prove that a terrorist act had taken place and out of
several unlawful organizations and gangs operating in the State of
Manipur, the particular terrorist act is attributed to UNLF, the
appellants cannot be held guilty for conspiracy within the meaning
of section 18 of the UA(P)A and unless it is proved that the
appellants are members of UNLF, a terrorist gang or organization,
the appellants cannot be held guilty of being a member of the
terrorist gang or organization within the meaning of section 20 of
the UA(P)A.
522) In view of the decisions on point of determination no.(a)
above, the conviction of the accused nos. A-6 to A-12, A-14 to A-
17, A-24 and A-25 by the learned Trial Court for being members of
UNLF, which is punishable under Section 20 of the UA(P)A cannot
be sustained. Accordingly, the conviction of the said appellants
under Section 20 of the UA(P)A is reversed. The said appellants,
namely, A-14 to A-17, A-24 and A-25 Sougaijam Rakesh Singh (A-
6), O. Samarjit Singh @ Naresh @ Kadeng (A-7), W. Noren Singh
@ W. Noren Meetei @ Thoiba (A-8), Khwairakpam Jeeten Singh @
Khomba @ Dene (A-10), Sinam Gune Singh @ S. Gune Singh @
Boy @ Wanglem @ Little Boy (A-11), Mutum Ibohal (A-12), Mrs.
Landhoni Devi (A-14), Oinam Maniton Singha (A-15), N. Dilip
Singh @ Ibochou @ Mani (A-16) and Laurenbum Jatishor Singh
Page 224 of 261
(A-17), Y. Brajabidhu Singh (A-24), A. Ibomcha @ A. Ibomcha
Singh (A-25) are therefore, acquitted of the offence of Section 20
of the UA(P)A.
523) The accused nos. A-6 to A-8, A-10 to A-12, A-16 and A-
17 have also been convicted for committing offence punishable
under Section 18 of the UA(P)A. In the context of the following
appellants, namely, Sougaijam Rakesh Singh (A-6), O. Samarjit
Singh @ Naresh @ Kadeng (A-7), W. Noren Singh @ W. Noren
Meetei @ Thoiba (A-8), Khwairakpam Jeeten Singh @ Khomba @
Dene (A-10), Sinam Gune Singh @ S. Gune Singh @ Boy @
Wanglem @ Little Boy (A-11), Mutum Ibohal (A-12), N. Dilip Singh
@ Ibochou @ Mani (A-16) and Laurenbum Jatishor Singh (A-17),
as discussed above, it is seen that none of the prosecution
witnesses have been able to prove that UNLF had committed any
terrorist act so as to link the aforesaid appellants' involvement in
the commission, abetment, preparation etc. of any terrorist act.
Therefore, it is held that merely because the name of the UNLF is
entered in the first schedule, no presumption can be drawn that
the said appellants/ accused persons were members of UNLF and
had indulged in any unlawful activity punishable under Section 18
of the UA(P)A.
524) In light of the discussions made hereinbefore, the Court
has held that the prosecution had failed to prove the offence of
criminal conspiracy by the said accused nos. A-6 to A-8, A-10 to A-
12, A-16 and A-17. From the evidence discussed above, there is
Page 225 of 261
no evidence that any of the said appellants had committed or
advocated or abetted or advised or incited or directed or
knowingly facilitated the commission of any terrorist act or any act
preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act.
525) Accordingly, the conviction of the following appellants,
i.e. Sougaijam Rakesh Singh (A-6), O. Samarjit Singh @ Naresh @
Kadeng (A-7), W. Noren Singh @ W. Noren Meetei @ Thoiba (A-
8), Khwairakpam Jeeten Singh @ Khomba @ Dene (A-10), Sinam
Gune Singh @ S. Gune Singh @ Boy @ Wanglem @ Little Boy (A-
11), Mutum Ibohal (A-12), N. Dilip Singh @ Ibochou @ Mani (A-
16) and Laurenbum Jatishor Singh (A-17) under Section 18 of the
UA(P)A, by the learned trial Court is not found sustainable.
526) Thus, the conviction the conviction and sentence of the
appellants named in the foregoing paragraph under Section 18 of
the UA(P)A is reversed and set aside. Resultantly, the said
appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 18 of the
UA(P)A.
527) Accordingly, the point of determination no. (b) is
answered in the affirmative and in favour of the appellants by
holding that the prosecution had not only failed to prove that the
UNLF had committed any terrorist act or that the following
appellants, i.e. Sougaijam Rakesh Singh (A-6), O. Samarjit Singh
@ Naresh @ Kadeng (A-7), W. Noren Singh @ W. Noren Meetei @
Thoiba (A-8), Khwairakpam Jeeten Singh @ Khomba @ Dene (A-
10), Sinam Gune Singh @ S. Gune Singh @ Boy @ Wanglem @
Page 226 of 261
Little Boy (A-11), Mutum Ibohal (A-12), Mrs. Landhoni Devi (A-14),
Oinam Maniton Singha (A-15), N. Dilip Singh @ Ibochou @ Mani
(A-16) and Laurenbum Jatishor Singh (A-17), Y. Brajabidhu Singh
(A-24), A. Ibomcha @ A. Ibomcha Singh (A-25) are liable to be
acquitted for offence charge under section 20 and 18 of the
UA(P)A.
Decision on point of determination no. (c):
528) In light of the discussions above, the conviction of the
following appellants Sougaijam Rakesh Singh (A-6), O. Samarjit
Singh @ Naresh @ Kadeng (A-7), W. Noren Singh @ W. Noren
Meetei @ Thoiba (A-8), Khwairakpam Jeeten Singh @ Khomba @
Dene (A-10), Sinam Gune Singh @ S. Gune Singh @ Boy @
Wanglem @ Little Boy (A-11), Mutum Ibohal (A-12), N. Dilip Singh
@ Ibochou @ Mani (A-16) and Laurenbum Jatishor Singh (A-17)
for committing offence punishable under Section 121A of the IPC
is also held to be not sustainable.
529) Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the said
appellants named in the foregoing paragraph by the learned trial
Court under Section 121A of the IPC is hereby reversed and set
aside and they are acquitted of charges under Section 121A of the
IPC.
530) Moreover, as discussed hereinbefore, the Court is of the
considered opinion that when on same set of facts the accused
nos. A-6 to A-8, A-10 to A-12, A-16 and A-17 were acquitted by
Page 227 of 261
the learned trial Court for committing offence of conspiracy
punishable under Section 120B of the IPC, the said accused
persons could not have been convicted by the learned trial Court
for commission of conspiracy under Section 121A of the IPC.
Accordingly, the point of determination (c), as framed under
paragraph 212 hereinbefore, is answered in the negative and in
favour of the concerned appellants, i.e. accused nos. A-6 to A-8,
A-10 to A-12, A-16 and A-17.
On point of determination no. (e):
531) In light of the discussion and decision on the point of
determination nos. (a) and (b), which are answered in favour of
the appellants, the point of determination no. (e) as framed at
paragraph 212 above is also decided and answered in the
affirmative and in favour of the appellant by holding that the
conviction of the appellants and the resultant sentence imposed on
them, i.e. (1) Sougaijam Rakesh Singh (A-6), appellant in
Crl.A.262/2016, (2) O. Samarjit Singh @ Naresh @ Kadeng (A-7),
appellant in Crl.A.264/2016, (3) Wayembam Noren Singh @ W.
Noren Meetei @ Thoiba (A-8), appellant in Crl.A.265/2016, (4)
Khwairakpam Jeeten Singh @ Khombo @ Dene (A-10), appellant
in Crl.A. 115/ 2017, (5) Sinam Gune Singh @ S. Gune Singh @ Boy
@ Wanglem @ Little Boy (A-11), appellant in Crl.A.263/2016, (6)
Mutum Ibohal (A-12), appellant in Crl.A. 145/2017, (7) Mrs.
Landhoni Devi (A-14), appellant in Crl.A. 165/2016, (8) Oinam
Maniton Singha (A-15), appellant in Crl.A.264/2016, (9) N. Dilip
Page 228 of 261
Singh @ Ibochou @ Mani (A-16), appellant in Crl.A.113/2017, (10)
Laurenbum Jatishor Singh (A-17), appellant in Crl.A.299/2016,
(11) Y. Brajabidhu Singh (A-24), appellant in Crl.A.291/2016, (12)
A. Ibomcha (A-25), appellant in Crl.A. 295/2016 are liable to be
reversed and set aside. They are entitled to acquittal on all counts.
ORDER
532) In light of the discussions above, all the appeals deserve
to be and are accordingly, allowed. All the above named appellants
are acquitted of all charges.
533) Those appellants who have not yet been released, shall
be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
534) Accordingly, the Registry shall issue the release orders,
on production of which, the concerned Superintendent of Jail
where the appellants are presently lodged, shall do the needful.
JUDGE JUDGE.
M.Kumar/Champak.
(PS)
Comparing Assistant
Page 229 of 261
Sl. Appendix Contents
1 Appendix - A List of witness in Trial Court [referred
to in paragraph 7(g)].
2 Appendix - B List of Exhibits in Trial Court [referred
to in paragraph 7(g)].
3 Appendix - C List of material exhibits in Trial Court
[referred to in paragraph 7(g)].
4 Appendix – D E-mails marked as Ext.5 in Trial Court
and with attachments [where
signatures are marked as Ext.5(2) to
Ext.5(6)] (referred to in paragraph
224).
5 Appendix – E E-mails marked as Ext.115(15),
Ext.115(16), Ext.115(176) and Ext.115
(177) in Trial Court (referred to in
paragraph 234).
Page 230 of 261
APPENDIX- A
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, NIA, ASSAM,
GUWAHATI
SPL.NIA CASE NO. 01/2010
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (NIA)
-VS-
Kh. Thomba & Ors.
List of Prosecution witnesses
Sl. No. Witness No. Name of the Witness
1. PW-1 Sh. Mahesh Chandra Das
2. PW-2 Md. Mukshed Dewan
3. PW-3 Mr. ‘X’ (Protected Witness)
4. PW-4 Mr. ‘Y’ (Protected Witness)
5. PW-5 Sh. M. Baskar (Sr. Scientific Officer, CFI,
Pune).
6. PW-6 Sh. Bijoy Krishna Das (Defence Civilian).
7. PW-7 Sh. Indubhusan Kongkham
8. PW-8 Sh. Ujwal Bhattacharya
9. PW-9 Sh. Nongthombam Premchand
10. PW-10 Dr. Nilambar Thakuria
11. PW-11 Sh. L. Pakasana Singh
12. PW-12 Sh. Pradip Nath
13. PW-13 Sh. Nitendra Tumung
14. PW-14 Sh. Suraj Sapam
15. PW-15 Sh. Phanidhar Das
16. PW-16 Sh. Trailukya Borah (Special task Force,
Assam).
17. PW-17 Sh. M.C. Arun
18. PW-18 Sh. Bhabananda Goswami
19. PW-19 Sh. Th. Sarat Singh
20. PW-20 Sh. Hemlal Joishi
21. PW-21 Sh. Pranjal Das
22. PW-22 Sh. R.K. Sanathomba Singh
23. PW-23 Sh. Ak. Ibochouba Singh
24. PW-24 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jain (Chartered
Accountant).
Page 231 of 261
25. PW-25 Smti. Ambika Sharma
26. PW-26 Sh. Laitonjam Rupa Singh
27. PW-27 Sh. Laitonjam Inao Singh
28. PW-28 Sh. Ganesh Kalita
29. PW-29 Sh. N. Holland Singh
30. PW-30 Sh. Ranjeev Kumar Boro
31. PW-31 Sh. Gajendranath Bhattacharyya
32. PW-32 Sh. Ngangom Netrojit Singh
33. PW-33 Sh. Someswar Dutta, Insp. of Police, Vigilance
& Anti Corruption.
34. PW-34 Sh. L. Momon Singh
35. PW-35 Sh. Akshay Kumar Das
36. PW-36 Sh. Jyoti Mili, Sub-Inspector of Police, Dispur
P.S.
37. PW-37 Sh. Kh. Lanngamba
38. PW-38 Sh. Samujjal Gautam
39. PW-39 Sh. Ng. Robert Singh
40. PW-40 Sh. Bhaskar Das
41. PW-41 Sh. Gaunadip Das
42. PW-42 Dr. Bidyut Das Boro, D.S.P., Chandmari.
43. PW-43 Sh. B. Haridas Sarma, Retd., Govt. Servant.
44. PW-44 Sh. D.P. Gangwar, Sr. Scientific Officer, CFSL,
Chandigarh.
45. PW-45 Sh. Th. Indramani Singh
46. PW-46 Sh. B. Badoniya, Dy. Director, CFSL, Pune.
47. PW-47 Ms. W. Amusana
48. PW-48 Sh. L. Surendra Singh
49. PW-49 Sh. Yumkham Rother, C.J.M., Churachandpur.
50. PW-50 Sh. Kanteshwar Gogoi, S.D.P.O., Rangia.
51. PW-51 Sh. Amalendu Dhar, D.S.P., N.I.A., New Delhi.
52. PW-52 Md. Salauddin
53. PW-53 Sh. Satheesh Chand, G.M., G.M.R. Group,
Bangalore.
54. PW-54 Sh. Siddharth Indravadan Desai, Retd.
Scientific Officer, Photography Division, DFSL,
Chandigarh.
55. PW-55 Sh. Rashiklal Naranbhai Guna, Asst. Director,
Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhinagar.
56. PW-56 Sh. M. Imomacha Singh
57. PW-57 Sh. O. Ibomcha Singh
58. PW-58 Sh. Dinesh Kumar, N.I.A. Official.
59. PW-59 Sh. Kh. Asokumar Singh
60. PW-60 Sh. A. Manihar Singh
61. PW-61 Sh. M. Joy Singh
Page 232 of 261
62. PW-62 Sh. Devinder Singh, D.S.P., N.I.A.
63. PW-63 Sh. K. Krishna Kumar Singh
64. PW-64 Sh. O.S. Ashok
65. PW-65 Sh. Loktongbam Bimol Singh
66. PW-66 Sh. Ravi Gambhir, A.S.P., C.B.I., N.C.B., New
Delhi.
67. PW-67 Sh. Maibam Rameswar Singh, S.D.P.O.,
Mayang, Imphal West District.
68. PW-68 Sh. Anil Kumar, D.S.P., N.I.A., Head Quarter,
New Delhi.
69. PW-69 Sh. Ramananda Sairemcha
70. PW-70 Sh. R.K. Nepolean Singh
71. PW-71 Sh. Ninendra Narayan Bora, Director I/c.,
Directorate of Forensic Science, Assam.
72. PW-72 Smti. Laurembam Ibeyaima
73. PW-73 Sh. Kishan Lal
74. PW-74 Sh. Siba Prasad Mohanty
75. PW-75 Sh. K. Radha Kumar Singh
76. PW-76 Dr. Rajendra Nath Khound, Retd. Director,
Directorate of Forensic Science, Assam.
77. PW-77 Sh. Dharmendra Sharma, Commissioner &
Principal Secretary, Govt. of A.P.
78. PW-78 Sh. Virendra Kumar, Deputy Financial Advisor,
Ministry of Defence.
79. PW-79 Sh. Surinder Singh Bakshi, Deputy
Commandant, 36 Bn., BSF.,
80. PW-80 Sh. Aseem Srivastava, S.P., N.I.A., Lucknow
Branch.
81. PW-81 Sh. Sudesh Kumar Sharma
82. PW-82 Sh. Jadu Das
83. PW-83 Sh. M. Lokendro Singh
84. PW-84 Sh. Swayam Prakash Pani, D.I.G., Ministry of
Home Affairs, Govt. of India.
Page 233 of 261
APPENDIX- B
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, NIA, ASSAM,
GUWAHATI
SPL.NIA CASE NO. 01/2010
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (NIA)
-VS-
Kh. Thomba & Ors.
List of Exhibited Documents
Sl. No. Exhibit No. Nature of Documents
1. Ext. 1 Examination report of CFSL
2. Ext. 1/1, Ext. 1/2 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
3. Ext. 2 to Ext. 30 emails
4. Ext. 2/1 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
5. Ext. 3/1 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
6. Ext. 4/1 to 4/13 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
7. Ext. 5 E-mail
8. Ext. 5/1 to 5/6 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
9. Ext. 6/1 to 6/3 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
10. Ext. 7/1 to 7/3 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
11. Ext. 9/1 to 9/3 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
12. Ext. 10/1, 10/2 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
13. Ext. 11/1 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
14. Ext. 12/1, 12/2 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
15. Ext. 13/1 to Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
13/120
16. Ext. 14/1 to 14/77 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
17. Ext. 15/1 to 15/16 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
18. Ext. 16/1 to 16/16 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
19. Ext. 17/1 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
20. Ext. 18/1 to 18/19 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
21. Ext. 19/1 to 19/31 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
22. Ext. 20/1 to 20/3 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
23. Ext. 21/1 to 21/4 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
24. Ext. 22/1, 22/2 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
25. Ext. 23/1 to 23/3 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
Page 234 of 261
26. Ext. 24/1 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
27. Ext. 25/1 to 25/12 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
28. Ext. 26/1 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
29. Ext. 27/1 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
30. Ext. 28/1, 28/2 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
31. Ext. 29/1 to 29/7 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
32. Ext. 30/1 to 30/5 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
33. Ext. 30/6 email
34. Ext. 30/7 to 30/72 Signatures of M. Baskar (PW-5)
35. Ext. 31 Seizure Memo
36. Ext. 31/1 Signature of B.K. Das (PW-6)
37. Ext. 31/2 Signature of N. Tumung (PW-13)
38. Ext. 32 Seizure Memo
39. Ext. 32/1 Signature of Indubhusan (PW-7)
40. Ext. 32/2 Invitation Letter
41. Ext. 32/2/a Chinese Script
42. Ext. 32/3 Letter of Trust
43. Ext. 32/4/a to 32/4/p Copy of Passport
44. Ext. 32/5 Signature of PW-80
45. Ext. 33 Seizure Memo
46. Ext. 33/1 Signature of U. Bhattacharya (PW-8)
47. Ext. 33/2 Signature of PW-51
48. Ext. 34 Proforma for verification
49. Ext. 34/2, 34/3 Copies of ID card
50. Ext. 34/4 Tenancy Agreement
51. Ext. 34/5 and 34/6 Signatures of PW-31
52. Ext. 35 Photograph
53. Ext. 35/1 Photograph of N. Premchand (PW-9)
54. Ext. 35/2 Photograph of S. Rakesh Singh
55. Ext. 35/3 Photograph of Dr. Arun Kumar
56. Ext. 36 Photograph
57. Ext. 36/1 Photograph of N. Premchand (PW-9)
58. Ext. 36/2 Photograph of S. Rakesh Singh
59. Ext. 36/3 Photograph of Dr. Arun Kumar
60. Ext. 37 Seizure Memo
61. Ext. 37/1 Signature of N. Thakuria (PW-10)
62. Ext. 38 & 39 Tenant Verification Form
63. Ext. 40 & 41 Arrest Memo
64. Ext. 40/1 & 41/1 Signatures of N. Tumung (PW-13)
65. Ext. 14/9/a Relevant entries in the name of Sapam X-
Ray
66. Ext. 14/10/a to Relevant entries in the name of Sapam X-
14/10/d Ray
67. Ext. 14/11/e, 14/11/f Relevant entries in the name of Sapam X-
Page 235 of 261
Ray
68. Ext. 14/12/g, 14/12/h Relevant entries in the name of Sapam X-
Ray
69. Ext. 14/19/a, 14/19/b Relevant entries in the name of Sapam X-
Ray
70. Ext. 14/20/a, 14/20/b Relevant entries in the name of Sapam X-
Ray
71. Ext. 14/21/b Relevant entries in the name of Sapam X-
Ray
72. Ext. 13/15/a, 13/15/b Relevant entries in the name of Sapam X-
Ray
73. Ext. 13/16/a, 13/16/b Relevant entries in the name of Sapam X-
Ray
74. Ext. 13/17/a to Relevant entries in the name of Sapam X-
13/17/d Ray
75. Ext. 13/18/a, Relevant entries in the name of Sapam X-
13/18/b Ray
76. Ext. 42 Seizure Memo
77. Ext. 42/1 Signature of P. Das (PW-15)
78. Ext. 43 FIR Format
79. Ext. 43/1 Signature of T. Bora (PW-16)
80. Ext. 43/2 Signature of K. Gogoi
81. Ext. 43/3 FIR
82. Ext. 43/4 Signature of T. Bora (PW-16)
83. Ext. 43/5 Signature of K. Gogoi
84. Ext. 44 Seizure List
85. Ext. 44/1 to 44/3 Signatures
86. Ext. 45 Seizure List
87. Ext. 45/1 Signature of PW-20
88. Ext. 46 & 47 Seizure Memo
89. Ext. 46/1 & 47/1 Signature of PW-21
90. Ext. 48 Application
91. Ext. 48/1 Extract of Resolution
92. Ext. 48/2 Rules and Regulations
93. Ext. 48/3 Signature of A-24
94. Ext. 48/4 Signature of A-23
95. Ext. 48/5 Signature of A-25
96. Ext. 48/6 Certificate of Registration
97. Ext. 48/7 Account Opening Form
98. Ext. 49 Statement of Account
99. Ext. 50 Loan Account statement
100. Ext. 51 Loan Sanction Letter
101. Ext. 51/1 Signature
102. Ext. 51/2 Security Letter
Page 236 of 261
103. Ext. 51/3 Demand Promissory Note
104. Ext. 51/4 to 51/6 Term Deposit Receipts
105. Ext. 52 Seizure Memo
106. Ext. 52/1 Signature of PW-23
107. Ext. 53 Pay-in-Slips
108. Ext. 53/1 to 51/7 Pay-in-Slips
109. Ext. 53/8 Statement
110. Ext. 54 Cheques
111. Ext. 54/1 to 54/9 Cheques
112. Ext. 54/10 Statement
113. Ext. 55 Audited Receipts and Payment Accounts
114. Ext. 55/1 Seizure Memo
115. Ext. 55/2 to 55/4 Signatures and initials of PW-24
116. Ext. 55/5 and 55/6 Signatures of A-23
117. Ext. 55/7 Audited receipts and Payment Account
118. Ext. 55/8 to 55/11 Signatures and initials of PW-24
119. Ext. 55/12 to Signatures of A-23
55/14
120. Ext. 55/15 Entries
121. Ext. 55/16 Audited receipts and Payment Account
122. Ext. 55/17 to Initials of PW-24
55/21
123. Ext. 55/22 to Signatures of A-23
55/26
124. Ext. 55/27 Utilization Certificate
125. Ext. 55/28 Signature of PW-24
126. Ext. 55/29 Signatures of A-23
127. Ext. 55/30 Audited receipts and Payment Account
128. Ext. 55/31, 55/32 Signature of PW-24
129. Ext. 55/33, 55/34 Signatures of A-23
130. Ext. 56 Seizure Memo
131. Ext. 56/1 Signature of PW-24
132. Ext. 56/2 Receipts and payment account
133. Ext. 56/3 Signature of PW-24
134. Ext. 56/4 Entries
135. Ext. 56/5 to 56/9 Signatures and initials of PW-24
136. Ext. 56/10 to Signatures of A-23
56/14
137. Ext. 56/15 Utilization Certificate
138. Ext. 56/16 Signature of PW-24
139. Ext. 56/17 Signatures of A-23
140. Ext. 56/18 Signature of PW-79
141. Ext. 57 Seizure Memo
142. Ext. 57/1 Signature of PW-25
Page 237 of 261
143. Ext. 57/2 Signature of PW-20
144. Ext. 57/3 Signature of A-16
145. Ext. 58 Seizure Memo
146. Ext. 58/1 Signature of PW-26
147. Ext. 59 164 Cr.PC statement of PW-26
148. Ext. 59/1 to 59/3 Signature of PW-26
149. Ext. 59/4 & 59/6 Signatures of PW-49
150. Ext. 60 164 Cr.PC statement of PW-27
151. Ext. 60/1 and 60/2 Signature of PW-27
152. Ext. 60/3 & 60/4 Signatures of PW-49
153. Ext. 61 Seizure List
154. Ext. 61/1 Signature of PW-28
155. Ext. 61/2 Signature of C.K. Boro
156. Ext. 61/3 Signature of PW-41
157. Ext. 62 Personal Search memo
158. Ext. 62/1 Signature of PW-29
159. Ext. 63 Arrest Memo
160. Ext. 63/1 Signature of PW-29
161. Ext. 64 Arrest Memo
162. Ext. 64/1 Signature of PW-29
163. Ext. 65 Personal Search memo
164. Ext. 65/1 Signature of PW-29
165. Ext. 66 Seizure Memo
166. Ext. 66/1 Signature of PW-29
167. Ext. 67 Arrest Memo
168. Ext. 67/1 Signature of PW-29
169. Ext. 68 Personal Search Memo
170. Ext. 68/1 Signature of PW-29
171. Ext. 69 Seizure List
172. Ext. 69/1 Signature of PW-29
173. Ext. 70 Statement of Account
174. Ext. 71 Seizure Memo
175. Ext. 71/1 Signature of PW-32
175. Ext. 71/2 ATM Card
176. Ext. 71/3 Pan Card
177. Ext. 71/4 Driving Licence
178. Ext. 71/5 ATM Card
179. Ext. 71/6 SBI ATM card
180. Ext. 71/7 Signature of PW-62
181. Ext. 72 Seizure Memo
182. Ext. 72/1 to 72/6 Signature of PW-32
183. Ext. 72/7 to 72/20 Pay-in-Slips
184. Ext. 72/21 & 72/22 Statement of Account
Page 238 of 261
185. Ext. 72/23 to Statement of Account
72/26
186. Ext. 72/27 Signature of PW-62
187. Ext. 73 Photograph
188. Ext. 74 189 Seizure List
189. Ext. 74/1 Signature of PW-33
190. Ext. 74/2 Signature of A-3 (Absconder)
191. Ext. 75 Forwarding Report
192. Ext. 76 Seizure Memo
193. Ext. 76/1 & 76/2 Signatures of PW-33
194. Ext. 76/3 & 76/4 Signatures of C.K. Boro
195. Ext. 77 Seizure List
196. Ext. 77/1 Signature of C.К. Вого
197. Ext. 78 Signature of Memo
198. Ext. 78/1 Signature of C.К. Вого
199. Ext. 78/2 Signature of PW-40
200. Ext. 79 Seizure List
201. Ext. 79/1 Signature of C.K. Boro
202. Ext. 79/2 Signature of PW-38
203. Ext. 80 Seizure Memo
204. Ext. 80/1 Signature of C.K. Boro
205. Ext. 81 Forwarding Report
206. Ext. 81/1 Signature of PW-33
207. Ext. 82 Seizure List
208. Ext. 82/1 Signature of PW-33
209. Ext. 82/2 & 82/3 Signature of PW-36
210. Ext. 83 Seizure Memo
211. Ext. 83/1 Signature of PW-36
212. Ext. 83/2 Signature of PW-35
213. Ext. 84 Letter
214. Ext. 84/1 Signature of PW-33
215. Ext. 85 Letter
216. Ext. 85/1 Signature of PW-33
217. Ext. 86 FIR
218. Ext. 86/1 & 86/2 Signature of M. Rameshwar Singh
219. Ext. 87 Production Memo
220. Ext. 87/1 & 87/2 Signatures of PW-39
221. Ext. 87/3 Signature
222. Ext. 88 Order
223. Ext. 88/1 Signature of PW-77
Page 239 of 261
224. Ext. 89 Seizure Memo
225. Ext. 89/1 Signature of PW-39
226. Ext. 90 Seizure Memo
227. Ext. 90/1 Signature of PW-39
228. Ext. 91 Kaccha Cash Book
229. Ext. 91/1 to 91/21 Q-1 to Q-21
230. Ext. 91/22 to Initials of PW-55
91/42
231. Ext. 91/43 to Signatures
91/76
232. Ext. 92 Specimen signature/writing of PW-61
233. Ext. 92/1 to 92/10 Writings of PW-61
234. Ext. 92/11 to Signatures of PW-61
92/20
235. Ext. 92/21 to Signatures of PW-61
92/30
236. Ext. 93 164 Cr.PC statement of PW-43
237. Ext. 93/1 & 93/2 Signatures of PW-43
238. Ext. 94 Attachment Notice
239. Ext. 94/1 to 94/3 Signatures of PW-43
240. Ext. 94/4 to 94/7 Signatures of PW-79
241. Ext. 95 Attachment Notice
242. Ext. 95/1 Signature of PW-43
243. Ext. 96 Statement of Account
244. Ext. 96/1 to 96/6 Signatures of A-23
245. Ext. 97 Forwarding Letter
246. Ext. 97/1 to 97/6 Details of exhibits
247. Ext. 98, 98/1 & 98/2 Report of CFSL
248. Ext. 98/3 to 98/5 Signatures of PW-44
249. Ext. 99 Letter
250. Ext. 99/1 Signature of Dr. S.K. Jain
251. Ext. 100 Report
252. Ext. 100/1 & 100/2 Signatures of PW-46
253. Ext. 101 Forwarding Letter
254. Ext. 101/1 to Appendix
101/7
255. Ext. 102 Covered Letter
256. Ext. 102/1 Signature of Director, CFSL, Chandigarh
257. Ext. 103 Photograph
258. Ext. 103/1 Signature of PW-47
259. Ext. 104 164 Cr.PC statement
Page 240 of 261
260. Ext. 104/1 Statement of PW-47
261. Ext. 104/2, 104/5 Signature of PW-49
& 104/6
262. Ext. 104/3 & 104/4 Signatures of PW-47
263. Ext. 105 Letter
264. Ext. 105/1 & 105/2 Signature
265. Ext. 106 Memorandum
266. Ext. 106/1 to Signatures
106/3
267. Ext. 107 268 Production Memo
268. Ext . 107/1 Signature of PW-48
269. Ext. 108 164 Cr.PC statement of PW-26
270. Ext. 108/1 Signature of PW-49
271. Ext. 108/2 to Signatures of PW-26
108/4
272. Ext. 109 164 Cr.PC statement of PW-27
273. Ext. 109/1 Signature of PW-49
274. Ext. 109/2 & 109/3 Signatures of PW-27
275. Ext. 110 164 Cr.PC statement of PW-7
276. Ext. 110/1 Signature of PW-49
277. Ext. 110/2 & 110/3 Signatures of PW-7
278. Ext. 111 Disclosure Memo
279. Ext. 111/7 Signature of PW-80
280. Ext. 111/1 to 111/10 Signatures
281. Ext. 111/11 & Signatures of PW-81
111/12 (PW-81)
282. Ext. 111/11 & Signatures of PW-84
111/12 (PW-84)
283. Ext. 112 Recovery Memo
284. Ext. 112/1 to Signatures
112/12
285. Ext. 112/13 & Signatures of PW-81
112/14 (PW-81)
286. Ext. 112/13 & Signatures of PW-84
112/14 (PW-84)
287. Ext. 113 Recovery Memo
288. Ext. 113/1 to Signatures
113/12
289. Ext. 113/13 & Signatures of PW-81
113/14 (PW-81)
290. Ext. 113/13 & Signatures of PW-84
113/14 (PW-84)
Page 241 of 261
291. Ext. 114 Certificate
292. Ext. 114/1 Signature of PW-53
293. Ext. 115 Printout of email
294. Ext. 115/1 to 115/88 Signatures exhibited on e-mail print-out
295. Ext. 116 Forwarding Letter
296. Ext. 116/1 Signature
297. Ext. 117/6, 117/8, Photographs
117/11
298. Ext. 117/1 to 117/27 Signatures of PW-54
299. Ext. 118 Letter
300. Ext. 118/1 to Forwarding Note
118/4
301. Ext. 119 Report
302. Ext. 119/1 to Signatures of PW-55
119/4
303. Ext. 119/5 Signature of Dy. Chief Examiner of
Questioned Documents.
304. Ext. 119/6 Signature of PW-55
305. Ext. 120 Letter
306. Ext. 120/1 Signature of Dy. Director of DFS, Gandhinagar
307. Ext. 121 Photocopy of News item
308. Ext. 122 & 123 News Items in Manipuri paper
309. Ext. 124 Letter
310. Ext. 124/1 Signature of PW-66
311. Ext. 125 Letter
312. Ext. 125/1, 125/2 Signatures of PW-57
313. Ext. 125/3 to Statements of Accounts
125/5
314. Ext. 125/6 to Signatures of PW-57
125/8
315. Ext. 125/9 to 125/19 Statements of Accounts
316. Ext. 125/20 to 125/30 Signatures of PW-57
317. Ext. 125/31 to 125/52 Statements of Accounts
318. Ext. 125/53 to 125/74 Signatures of PW-57
319. Ext. 126 Letter
320. Ext. 126/1 Signature of PW-57
321. Ext. 126/2 to Attested Photocopies of A/c Opening Form
126/7
322. Ext. 126/8 to Signatures of PW-57
126/12
323. Ext. 126/13 to 126/15 A/c Opening Form
324. Ext. 126/16 to 126/18 Signatures of PW-57
Page 242 of 261
325. Ext. 126/19 & 126/20 Specimen signature Cards
326. Ext. 126/21 Nomination Form
327. Ext. 126/22 to 126/24 A/c Opening Form
328. Ext. 126/25, 126/26 Signatures of PW-57
329. Ext. 127 Memo
330. Ext. 127/1 Signature of PW-58
331. Ext. 127/2 Signature of A-19
332. Ext. 127/3 Signature of PW-80
333. Ext. 128 Photograph
334. Ext. 128/1 Signature of PW-61
335. Ext. 129 Photo identification Memo
336. Ext. 129/1 Signature of PW-61
337. Ext. 130 Production cum Receipt Memo
338. Ext. 131 to 133 Letters
339. Ext. 132/1 to Signatures of PW-62
133/1
340. Ext. 134 Search List
341. Ext. 134/1 Signature of PW-62
342. Ext. 135 Photograph
343. Ext. 135/1, 135/2, Signatures of PW-63
135/4
344. Ext. 135/3 Photo Identification Memo
345. Ext. 136 Prosecution Sanction Order
346. Ext. 136/1 Signature of PW-64
347. Ext. 137 Prosecution Sanction Order
348. Ext. 137/1 Signature of PW-78
349. Ext. 138 Letter
350. Ext. 138/1 Signature of PW-66
351. Ext. 139 Letter
352. Ext. 139/1 Signature of PW-76
353. Ext. 140 Search List
354. Ext. 140/1 & 140/2 Signatures of PW-66
355. Ext. 140/3 & 140/4 Signatures
356. Ext. 141 Application for extension of Passport
357. Ext. 142 Letter
358. Ext. 142/1 Signature of PW-69
359. Ext. 143 Passport
360. Ext. 144 Interim Report
361. Ext. 144/1 to Signatures
144/3
362. Ext. 145 Interim Report
Page 243 of 261
363. Ext. 145/1 to Signatures
145/23
364. Ext. 146 Forwarding Letter
365. Ext. 146/1 Signature
366. Ext. 147 Final Examination Report
367. Ext. 147/1 to Signatures
147/3
368. Ext. 148 Forwarding Letter
369. Ext. 148/1 Signature
370. Ext. 149 Examination Report of Nokia mobile
371. Ext. 149/1 to Signatures
149/6
372. Ext. 150 Forwarding Letter
373. Ext. 150/1 Signature
374. Ext. 151 Examination Report of Hard disc
375. Ext. 151/1 to Signatures
151/8
376. Ext. 152 Forwarding Letter
377. Ext. 152/1 Signature
378. Ext. 153 Examination Report of Lenovo laptop
379. Ext. 153/1 to Signature
153/14
380. Ext. 154 Forwarding Letter
381. Ext. 154/1 Signature
382. Ext. 155 Examination Report of Acer Aspire Laptop
383. Ext. 155/1 to 155/13 Signatures
384. Ext. 156 Forwarding Letter
385. Ext. 156/1 Signatures
386. Ext. 157 Examination Report of HP Mini laptop
387. Ext. 158 Signatures
388. Ext. 158/1 Forwarding Letter
389. Ext. 157/1 to 157/15 Signatures
390. Ext. 159 Examination Report of Compac Presario laptop
391. Ext. 159/1 to Signatures
159/7
392. Ext. 160 Forwarding Letter
393. Ext. 160/1 Signature
394. Ext. 161 Examination Report of Acer Travel Mate laptop
395. Ext. 161/1 to Signatures
161/7
396. Ext. 162 Forwarding Letter
Page 244 of 261
397. Ext. 162/1 Signature
398. Ext. 163 Examination report of Lenovo laptop
399. Ext. 163/1 to 163/20 Signatures
400. Ext. 164 Forwarding Letter
401. Ext. 164/1 Signature
402. Ext. 165 Examination Report of Hard disc of Acer EEE Laptop
403. Ext. 165/1 to Signatures
165/7
404. Ext. 166 Disclosure Statement
405. Ext. 166/1 & 166/4 Signatures of PW-73
406. Ext. 166/2 & 166/5 Signatures of PW-81
407. Ext. 166/3 & 166/6 Signatures of A-19
408. Ext. 166/7 & 166/8 Signatures of PW-80
409. Ext. 167 Recovery Memo
410. Ext. 167/1, 167/4, Signatures of PW-73
167/7
411. Ext. 167/2, 167/5, Signatures of PW-81
167/8
412. Ext. 167/3, 167/6, Signatures of A-19
167/9
413. Ext. 167/10, Signatures of PW-74
167/11, 167/12
414. Ext. 167/13 to 167/15 Signatures of PW-80
415. Ext. 168 Certificate
416. Ext. 168/1 Signature of PW-74
417. Ext. 169 Forwarding letter dated 06.01.2011, by
which copies of dossiers booked under NSA
was sent.
418. Ext. 169/1 Signature of PW-75
419. Ext. 170 Detention order of A-11
420. Ext. 170/1 Signature of PW-75
421. Ext. 170/2 Ground of detention
422. Ext. 170/3 to Signatures of PW-75
170/6
423. Ext. 170/7 Statement of A-11
424. Ext. 170/8 to 170/12 Signatures of PW-75
425. Ext. 170/14 & 170/15 FIR
426. Ext. 170/16 Signatures of PW-75
427. Ext. 170/13 History Sheet of accused
428. Ext. 170/17 to 170/20 Signatures of PW-75
429. Ext. 171 Detention Order of A-8
Page 245 of 261
430. Ext. 171/1 Signature of PW-75
431. Ext. 171/2 Ground of detention
432. Ext. 171/3 to Signatures of PW-75
171/6
433. Ext. 171/7 Statement of A-8
434. Ext. 171/8 to 171/11 Signatures of PW-75
435. Ext. 171/12 Statement of Complainant
436. Ext. 171/13 Signatures of PW-75
437. Ext. 171/14 FIR
438. Ext. 171/15 & 171/16 Signatures of PW-75
439. Ext. 171/17 History Sheet of accused
440. Ext. 171/18 to 171/21 Signatures of PW-75
441. Ext. 172 Detention Order of A-9
442. Ext. 172/1 Signature of PW-75
443. Ext. 172/2 Ground of Detention
444. Ext. 172/3 to Signatures of PW-75
172/5
445. Ext. 172/6 Statement of A-9
446. Ext. 172/7 to Signatures of PW-75
172/9
447. Ext. 172/10 Complaint
448. Ext. 172/11 Signature of PW-75
449. Ext. 172/12 FIR
450. Ext. 172/13 & 172/14 Signatures of PW-75
451. Ext. 172/15 History Sheet of A-9
452. Ext. 172/16 to 172/18 Signatures of PW-75
453. Ext. 173 Detention Order of A-7
454. Ext. 173/1 Signature of PW-75
455. Ext. 173/2 Ground of Detention
456. Ext. 173/3 to Signatures of PW-75
173/5
457. Ext. 173/6 Statement of A-7
458. Ext. 173/7 to Signatures of PW-75
173/9
459. Ext. 173/10 Complaint
460. Ext. 173/11 Signature of PW-75
461. Ext. 173/12 FIR
462. Ext. 173/13 & 173/14 Signatures of PW-75
463. Ext. 173/15 History Sheet of A-7
464. Ext. 174 Signatures of PW-75
465. Ext. 174/1 Detention Order of A-5
Page 246 of 261
466. Ext. 173/16 to 173/18 Signature of PW-75
467. Ext. 174/2 Ground of Detention of A-5
468. Ext. 174/3 to Signatures of PW-75
174/5
469. Ext. 174/6 Statement of A-5
470. Ext. 174/7 to Signatures of PW-75
174/9
471. Ext.174/10 Complaint
472. Ext.174/11 Signature of PW-75
473. Ext.174/12 FIR
474. Ext.174/13 & 174/14 Signatures of PW-75
475. Ext.174/15 History sheet of A-5
476. Ext.174/16 to Signatures of PW-75
174/18
477. Ext.175 Detention order of A-13
478. Ext.175/1 Signature of PW-75
479. Ext.175/2 Detention order of A-13
480. Ext.175/3 to 175/5 Signatures of PW-75
481. Ext.175/6 Statement of A-13
482. Ext.175/7 to 175/9 Signatures of PW-75
483. Ext.175/10 Complaint
484. Ext.175/11 Signature of PW-75
485. Ext.175/12 FIR
486. Ext.175/13 & 175/14 Signatures of PW-75
487. Ext.175/15 History Sheet of A-13
488. Ext.175/16 to Signatures of PW-75
175/18
489. Ext.176 Detention order of A-10
490. Ext.176/1 Signatures of PW-75
491. Ext.176/2 Ground of Detention of A-10
492. Ext.176/3 to 176/5 Signatures of PW-75
493. Ext.176/6 Statement of A-10
494. Ext.176/7 to 176/9 Signatures of PW-75
495. Ext.176/10 Complaint
496. Ext.176/11 Signatures of PW-75
497. Ext.176/12 FIR
498. Ext.176/13 & Signatures of PW-75
176/14
499. Ext.176/15 History Sheet of A-10
500. Ext.176/16 & 176/18 Signatures of PW-75
501. Ext.177 Letter
Page 247 of 261
502. Ext.177/1 Signatures of PW-75
503. Ext.178 Notification
504. Ext.178/1 & 178/2 Signatures of PW-75
505. Ext.179 Order of Govt. of Manipur
506. Ext.180 Detention Order of A-16
507. Ext.180/1 Signature of PW-75
508. Ext.180/2 Ground of Detention of A-16
509. Ext.180/3 to 180/5 Signature of PW-75
510. Ext.180/6 Statement of A-16
511. Ext.180/7 to 180/10 Signatures of PW-75
512. Ext.180/11 Complaint
513. Ext.180/12 Signatures of PW-75
514. Ext.180/13 FIR
515. Ext.180/14 Signatures of PW-75
516. Ext.180/15 History Sheet of A-16
517. Ext.180/16 to 180/19 Signatures of PW-75
518. Ext.181 Detention Order of A-17
519. Ext.181/1 Signature of PW-75
520. Ext.181/2 Ground of Detention of A-17
521. Ext.181/3 to 181/5 Signature of PW-75
522. Ext.181/6 Statement of A-17
523. Ext.181/7 to 181/10 Signatures of PW-75
524. Ext.181/11 Complaint
525. Ext.181/12 Signature of PW-75
526. Ext.181/13 FIR
527. Ext.181/14 Signature of PW-75
528. Ext.181/15 History Sheet of A-17
529. Ext.181/16 to 181/19 Signature of PW-75
530. Ext.182 Inspection Memo
531. Ext.182/1 Signature of PW-77
532. Ext.183 Fax Message
533. Ext.184 Order
534. Ext.184/1 Signature of PW-77
535. Ext.185 Letter/ Certificate
536. Ext.185/1 to 185/13 Statements
537. Ext.186 Downloading Memo
538. Ext.186/1 Signature of PW-79
539. Ext.187 Production Memo
540. Ext.187/1 Signature of PW-80
541. Ext.187/2 Signature of MC Arun
Page 248 of 261
542. Ext.188 Production Memo
543. Ext.188/1 Signature of PW-80
544. Ext.188/2 Signature of Dr. Premchand
545. Ext.189 Supplementary Charge Sheet
546. Ext.189/1 Signature of PW-80
547. Ext.190, 190/1 to E-mails
190/5
548. Ext. 190/6 to 190/10 Signatures of PW-44
549. Ext. 191, 191/1 to E-mails
191/8
550. Ext.191/10 to 191/15 Signatures of PW-44
551. Ext.192, 192/1 to E-mails
192/7
552. Ext. 192/7 to 192/10 Signatures of PW-44
553. Ext. 193, 193/1 to E-mails
193/12
554. Ext. 193/13 to 193/24 Signatures of PW-44
555. Ext. 194, 194/1 & E-mails
194/2
556. Ext.194/3 & 194/4 Signatures of PW-44
557. Ext.195, 195/1 to E-mails
195/3
558. Ext.195/4 to 195/6 Signatures of PW-44
559. Ext.196 Print out of emails
560. Ext.196/1 to 196/108 Signatures of PW-81
561. Ext.197 Disclosure Memo
562. Ext.197/1 Signature of PW-82
563. Ext.198 FIR
564. Ext.198/1 Signature of PW-84
565. Ext.199 Order of Ministry of Home Affairs
566. Ext.199/1 Signature of PW-84
567. Ext.200 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-40
568. Ext.200/1 Signature of PW-80
569. Ext.201 Charge Sheet
570. Ext.201/1 Signature of PW-84
571. Ext.202 series Hard Copy of Emails
572. Ext.202/1 to 202/39 Signatures of PW-44
573. Ext.203 series Hard Copy of Emails
574. Ext.203/1 to 203/97 Signatures of PW-44
575. Ext.204 Examination Report
576. Ext.204/1 & 204/2 Signatures of PW-44
Page 249 of 261
577. Ext.204/3 to 204/8 Initials of PW-44
578. Ext.205 series Photographs
579. Ext.205/1 to 205/6 Initials of PW-44
580. Ext.X Report
581. Ext.X(1) Signature
582. Ext.X(2) to X(4) Report
583. Ext.X(2/1) to Signatures
X(4/1)
584. Ext.Y Report
585. Ext.Y(1) Signature
586. Ext.Y(2) Letter
587. Ext.Y(2/1) Signature
588. Ext.Y(3) Report
589. Ext.Y(3/1) Signature
590. Ext.Y(4) Letter
591. Ext.Y(4/1) Signature
592. Ext.Y(5) Report
593. Ext.Y(5/1) Signature
Page 250 of 261
APPENDIX- C
In the Court of Special Judge, NIA, Assam, Guwahati
SPL. NIA Case No.01/2010
National Investigation Agency (NIA)
Versus
Kh. Thomba & Ors.
List of Material Exhibits:
Sl. Exhibit No. Nature of Document
No.
1. Mat. Ext.1 Parcel
2. Mat. Ext.1/1 Signature of PW-73
3. Mat. Ext.1/2 Signature of PW-81
4. Mat. Ext.2 Parcel
5. Mat. Ext.3 CD-R
6. Mat. Ext.4 Laptop
7. Mat. Ext.5 & 6 Mobile Phones
8. Mat. Ext.7 Pen Drive
9. Mat. Ext.8 & 9 Nokia Mobile Handsets
10. Mat. Ext.10 Pen Drive
11. Mat. Ext. 11 Laptop
12. Mat. Ext. 12, 13 Spice Mobile Sets
13. Mat. Ext. 14 SIM Card
14. Mat. Ext. 15 8 GB Hard Disc
15. Mat. Ext. 16 Handicam
16. Mat. Ext. 17 Sony Digital Camera
Page 251 of 261
17. Mat. Ext. 18 2 nos. CDs
18. Mat. Ext. 19 Battery Charger with battery
19. Mat. Ext.20, 21 Lenovo & Accer Laptops
20. Mat. Ext.22 to 27 Nokia, Micromax, Lephone
(with 1 airtel SIM, 1 vodafone
SIM, 1 Chinese SIM), Samsung
Tata (with one Tata Indicom
sim), Spice (with 2 airtel SIM)
Mobile Handsets.
21. Mat. Ext.M/28 Nikkon Digital Camera
22. Mat. Ext.M/29/A SIM Cards
to M/29/E
23. Mat. Ext.30/A to Pen drives
30/C
24. Mat. Ext.31/A to Data Cards
31/C
25. Mat. Ext.32 35 nos. of CDs
26. Mat. Ext.33 Photographs of Rakesh Singh
27. Mat. Ext.33/1 Signature of PW-40
28. Mat. Ext.34 Photograph of Oinam Naresh
29. Mat. Ext.34/1 Signature of PW-40
30. Mat. Ext.35 Photograph of Prem Singh
31. Mat. Ext.35/1 Signature of PW-40
32. Mat. Ext.36 Sony Digital Camera
33. Mat. Ext.37 Sony Cyber Shot Camera
34. Mat. Ext.38 Satellite Phone with battery
35. Mat. Ext.39 Sony Digital Camera
36. Mat. Ext.40 5 nos. of DVDs
37. Mat. Ext.41 & 42 CDs
38. Mat. Ext.41/A & CDs
41/B
39. Mat. Ext.41/C Cloth (White)
40. Mat. Ext.41/C/1 Signature of PW-58
Page 252 of 261
41. Mat. Ext.41/C/2 Signature of PW-58
42. Mat. Ext.42 CDs
43. Mat. Ext.43 Hard Disk
44. Mat. Ext.43/1 Sealed cloth cover with box
containing the hard disc.
45. Mat. Ext.43/2 Signature of PW-53
46. Mat. Ext.43/3 Signature of A-18
47. Mat. Ext.43/4 Signature of PW-84
48. Mat. Ext.43/5 Signature of PW-80
49. Mat. Ext.43/6 Signature of PW-79
50. Mat. Ext.43/7 Signatures of independent
witnesses
51. Mat. Ext.44 Hard Disc
52. Mat. Ext.45, 46 & CDs
47.
Page 253 of 261
APPENDIX-D
Page 254 of 261
Page 255 of 261
Page 256 of 261
Page 257 of 261
Page 258 of 261
APPENDIX-E
Page 259 of 261
Page 260 of 261
Page 261 of 261