Staff Reporter
ITANAGAR, 17 Feb: Dissatisfied with the manner and pace of the investigation being carried out by the Laluk police in the late Toko Riyam and Toko Ratam murder case, the father of the late brothers, Toko Runnel has written to the Lakhimpur (Assam) SP, seeking his intervention in the case to ensure early delivery of justice.
The brothers were found murdered under a railway bridge in Harmuti, Assam on 30 November, 2021.
In his letter to the Lakhimpur SP, Runnel expressed dissatisfaction over the alleged laxity in the investigation being carried out and urged the SP to direct the Laluk police station OC to endorse the investigation of Laluk Police Station Case No 400/2021, under Section 302/34 of the IPC, to an investigation officer for conducting the investigation in a proper and quick manner.
Runnel also sought proper monitoring of further investigation to ensure that the investigation is being undertaken in a fair and proper manner.
Earlier, on 4 December, 2021, the Lakhimpur police had arrested one Dilip Das. Later, two more accused were arrested in connection with the case. After their arrest, two of the accused raised the claim of juvenility in their bail applications before the additional chief judicial magistrate of Lakhimpur.
Claiming discrepancies in the documents produced by the two accused determining their age, the aggrieved father said, “One of the accused provided the birth certificate issued by the district registrar, birth and death, Papum Pare district, Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh, and the other relied on the birth certificate issued by the registrar of birth and death, Itanagar Municipal Council, Naharlagun, Arunachal Pradesh. Accordingly, it was deemed that they were born on 31.07.2004 (17 years 4 months) and 03.06.2004 (17 years 3 months) and juvenile during the commission of the alleged offence, accordingly, they were declared as child in conflict with law. At this juncture, it would be apposite to mention that there are considerable discrepancies in the materials produced to determine their ages. The date of birth of one accused is 31.07.2004 but it was registered on 18.10.2005 with a delay of more than 1 year, therefore, the documents submitted along with the application assume significance. More so, when the period by which he is taking shelter as a minor is around 8 months.”
“The register and other relevant materials which would have provided credence to the fact of him not being a minor were allegedly damaged or misplaced during the shifting of the office from Naharlagun to Yupia in the year 2010. Meaning, that it was incorrect on the part of the issuing authority to state that there is no discrepancy in the date of birth of the accused in the absence of materials that allegedly got damaged or displaced. Also, no certificate from the school attended was submitted before the Ld Court which further cast a cloud on the claim of juvenility.”
“The other accused has stated his date of birth to be 03.06.2004 but his birth certificate was issued on 17.07.2017, which would be after 13 (thirteen) years of his birth. There is no record to show how the entry in the register got entered or the certificate got issued and the materials that were considered to allow issuance of a certificate in 2017 for a birth occurring in 2004. A certificate from the school was submitted on his behalf but Ld Court refused to accept it as it was not a certificate issued from the school first attended.”
“Although these discrepancies existed, the Ld Court was only required to satisfy itself about the issuance of the certificates produced before it, hence, the exercise required to ascertain its genuineness and the circumstances of its issuance would have to be undertaken by the investigating officer. Therefore, it is incumbent on the investigating officer to investigate this aspect by making enquiries before the authorities who have issued the birth certificates as well as all the schools wherein they have studied to date and procure all documents that can help in determining their actual age. This will ensure that the two accused do not escape punishment for their heinous actions by invoking the provision of the Juvenile Justice Act on fake documents,” Toko Runnel stated.
He also suggested conducting ossification tests on both accused to find out their actual age.
Runnel further stated that, after the case was transferred from the Harmuty police station to the Laluk police station, the case has not been endorsed to an investigation officer for conducting the investigation.
“There has been no manner of satisfactory progress towards bringing the culprits to justice and the investigation is being conducted without any zeal or concrete endeavour, which is seriously impeding its progress. Even after nearly 3 months of investigation, no cogent evidence has been procured which would take the investigation to its logical end. In fact, with the passage of time, contradictions are arising between the investigation of the previous investigation officer and the details being given by police personnel of Laluk police station.”
“Further, recourse can be taken to scrutinizing the mobile dump data of the area and CCTV footage from the various cameras installed in and around the vicinity, but it has not been utilized to collect evidence against the accused persons rather the same is not scrutinized despite the availability of advance technology which points at the lax nature of the investigation,” claimed Runnel.
