Home News Headlines

Juvenile victim`s age twisted

IMPHAL, June 16: The age of a juvenile victim killed in a ‘fake encounter’ was allegedly twisted by a sub-divisional magistrate, according to a complaint filed with the state Home Minister and the National Human Rights Commission.

It may be recalled here that, the Home Minister Gaikhangam had assured investigation into the killing of 16 year old Ahanthem Amujao of Sawombung upon intervention by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR).

The NCPCR team led by its chairperson Shanta Sinha had visited the state on May 18 and conducted a public hearing on a complaint made by the Centre for Organisation Research and Education (CORE), Manipur regarding the alleged extra judicial execution of Master (L) Ahanthem Amujao, a 16 year old boy of Sawombung at Khuman Palli, Imphal West by police commandos.

However, in the inquiry notification signed by SDC/ executive magistrate I Dineshkumar the age of the victim Ahanthem Amujao has been quoted as 18.

The notification means that Amujao is an adult and not a juvenile.

In this regard, the family members petitioned to the concerned officials including home minister, Gaikhangam , praying to reinitiate another magisterial inquiry that would be accountable as the details provided in the SDC’s notification about Amujao was incorrect.

The family complaint mentioned that Amujao was born on December 5, 1995, by which he was 16 years, one month and three days old on January 29, 2012, i.e., the date of the alleged encounter.

It was petitioned that the inquiry would be superficial and the report will have no binding effect and can be easily denied. That the recommendations of the inquiry could be rejected by the government and thus providing an exit for the culprits involved. It was alleged that the inquiry would be another ploy of the government to save face with no sincere attempts at delivering justice. The complaint was made on May 22.

Ahanthem Tampha, mother of the deceased also petitioned that the magisterial inquiry was not specific and not adherent to any known types of magisterial inquiry under the constitutional existing laws and guidelines. The fabricated age of her son by the SDC was also mentioned implying by which the constitutional rights of children below 18 years are violated, hence objecting to the inquiry.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Exit mobile version