CW-2006-0001Imphal West, ManipurJudgment 31 January 2006

Loitang Khunou Woman vs State of Manipur and Ors.

The Gauhati High Court (single judge) held that a Loitang Khunou man @ a Loitang Khunou man was in the custody of five Manipur Police Commando personnel (respondents 6-10) led by SI Pebam John Singh when he was shot dead at Loitang Khunou on 15-02-1999 in a staged encounter, rejecting the police version. The court found the commandos took him to Loitang Khunou instead of the lock-up at their own risk and were liable for the loss of life in their protection and custody. Holding the State vicariously liable for the constitutional tort, it awarded Rs 3 lakh compensation payable within three months, the respondents jointly and severally liable. The staged FIR (Lamsang PS 7(2)/99 under Sections 121/121-A/307/302/34 IPC) did not save the encounter claim. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.

How verification works →

Report card

By judgment dated 31 January 2006, the Gauhati High Court (Coram: T. Nandakumar Singh, J.) returned findings adverse to 3 police personnel, namely: Pebam John Singh (Sub-Inspector); Police personnel, Manipur Police Commando Unit; Inspector (OC), Manipur Police Commando Unit, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000).

Register number
MN 01 CW 0002
Case reference
2006 Cri LJ 1895
Court and date
Gauhati High Court (Coram: T. Nandakumar Singh, J.), 31 January 2006
Officer(s) at the material time
Pebam John Singh (Sub-Inspector); Police personnel, Manipur Police Commando Unit; Inspector (OC), Manipur Police Commando Unit
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Finding of the Court (extract)
“From the view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that late a Loitang Khunou man Alias a Loitang Khunou man was in the custody of respondents 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 at the …” (at para 22)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000).
Present status of the proceedings
No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

The Gauhati High Court judgment dated 31 January 2006 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported

Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.

Official finding: supports allegation.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“From the view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that late a Loitang Khunou man Alias a Loitang Khunou man was in the custody of respondents 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 at the …” (para 22)

Institutional response

1
31 Jan 2006

Order issued

Concluded
Gauhati High Court External · Binding

The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: 2006 Cri LJ 1895
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
19 Sep 2026

(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))

Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.

Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.