CW-2006-0016Thoubal, ManipurJudgment 20 December 2006

Irong Thana Thongkhong Man v. State of Manipur and Others

The Gauhati High Court (Imphal Bench, Justice B.D. Agarwal) awarded Rs 2.5 lakh to the father of an Irong Thana Thongkhong man, who was shot dead by armed police constables escorting a sitting MLA during the February 2000 Assembly election campaign at Irong Thana Thongkhong. The Court found the firing was resorted to on mere suspicion of an attack, with no actual attack or provocation from the deceased's side, a conclusion supported by the District Magistrate's executive inquiry. The State of Manipur was held liable for the constables' killing; Rs 50,000 already paid as interim relief was adjusted against the award, which also covered two others injured in the firing. 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 20 December 2006, the Gauhati High Court (Coram: B.D. Agarwal, J.) returned findings adverse to the Armed Constable, Manipur Police (MLA escort party), and directed payment of compensation of Rs 2.5 lakh (Rs 2,50,000).

Register number
MN 04 CW 0001
Case reference
(2007) 2 GLR 823
Court and date
Gauhati High Court (Coram: B.D. Agarwal, J.), 20 December 2006
Officer(s) at the material time
Armed Constable, Manipur Police (MLA escort party)
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959
Finding of the Court (extract)
“In the result, the writ petition stands allowed with a direction that the writ petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2.5 lakhs (Rs. Two lakhs fifty thousand only). Since the deceased was killed by police constable, the State of …” (at para 15)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 2.5 lakh (Rs 2,50,000).
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 20 December 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.

“In the result, the writ petition stands allowed with a direction that the writ petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2.5 lakhs (Rs. Two lakhs fifty thousand only). Since the deceased was killed by police constable, the State of …” (para 15)

Institutional response

1
20 Dec 2006

Order issued

Concluded
Gauhati High Court External · Binding

The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 250,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: (2007) 2 GLR 823
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.