I am anguished since 18-11-2017. This was the unfortunate day when I heard about the death of Lt. Ngurang Pinch. The untimely and mysterious death during his sojourn at Hatimata/Ramghat, smelled foul play fraught suspicion on the theory of drowning. Apparently the Balijan Police was ineffective in dealing with the case as there was several loopholes in the procedures contravening the provisions of CrPC.
Hence, SIT was constituted to unearth the truth of mysterious death/unnatural death. The SIT took over the matter on 30-11-2017, but till date I find no apparent development/progress in this case.
Three male members & three female members of the rafting expedition deposed their statements before the press on different dates; by which it is apparently crystal clear that there is a foul play as their statements were contradictory and as such seemed that prior home work was not done. The victim’s family have been successful in gathering material evidences which will be of best help in aiding the SIT investigation.
It is pertinent to mention that, circumstantial evidences establishes a prima facie clear cut case of murder.
1. Why did Balijan Police fail to adhere to the procedures of law (Section 174 CrPC) as and when the information of unnatural death was received?
2. Whether Balijan Police is/are reliable?
3. Who deposed before the Balijan Police that there were only 8 members? And why have not they been arrested till date?
4. Who organised the rafting expedition?
5. The theory that the mobile phones of 20 rafting members were dead smells of rat and this is clear case of poor homework. This will sound irrational even for a person with minimum intelligence. 6. Well, before the press it has been stated that the mobile phones of 9 members were dead as the rubber boat capsized. But they themselves stated that behind them there were two bamboo rafts. These bamboo rafts were fortunate that they didn’t capsize. Then in such case, we deserve to know as to why the rafting members are deposing that all the phones were dead?
7. Since, as per their statements, it is apparent that the mobile phones of the members of bamboo rafts were safe, then, why did they not make phone calls to the victims’ family as and when the dead body was found?
8. Some members of the rafting expedition stated that there is no network in the place of occurrence. But when the members of the victims family went there, the very next day, they would visibly find mobile network coverage and so they called/rang the victims family members to confirm the presence of network coverage. Do you believe in the theory of “No network”?
9. It is crystal clear that the expedition members’ mobile phones were active.
(I) Since, the dead body was found at about 7 am in the morning as per their version, then why did they inform the victims family by 1:56 pm?
(II) Were they merry making for 7 hours?
(III) It is crystal clear beyond doubt that the rafting expedition members assembled and hatched out plans. Who were the main conspirators in this assembly/meeting? What did they conspire?
10. Some of the rafting expedition members states that in the morning at about 9am to 10 am, they searched the deceased person for 2-3 hours but later found him at a distance of near about 10m from their camp/tent. Whether this theory is digestible? Whether all the 20 members are partially blind?
11. Who were involved in procuring/luring the girls in this expedition? If the SIT knows this, then I am sure that they would be behind bars. Are they behind bars?
12. Whether the 7 girls are minors?
13. Is this a Sex racket?
14. If this is a Sex racket, then who is/are the pimp/pimps? Whether any pimp is arrested?
15. If this is a sex racket, then why are the rafting expedition members not booked under the relevant sections of law viz; IPC, POCSO 2012, etc?
16. Suppose the girls are minors and if they have been involved in sex racket, then whether any case is registered under Section 376 IPC?
17. If the girls were lured, then whether any case is registered for immoral trafficking?
18. Some members of the rafting expedition stated that they have been threatened of dire consequences. Why did they threaten? Who threatened? Whether any arrest made in this regard?
19. Three girls have stated that, they were summoned in Energy Park and were made to sign documents. What is/are this/these documents? Who compelled them to sign? Whether any arrest made in this regard?
20. The rafting expedition members states that Ngurang Abraham had quarreled with the deceased and warned him of dire consequences, then whether he is arrested and interrogated? And if not why?
21. Whether the girls have been produced before the Women Commission or Juvenile Justice Board as the case may be?
22. Whether any of these girls are concubines of the male rafting members?
23. If the girls are major, then why are their names not published? May be some are major.
24. Among these girls, some were the girl friends of rafting expedition members? What are the names of their boy friends?
25. Why is there a contradictory statement by the rafting expedition members? Contradiction shows poor preparation of home work.
26. It is learned from reliable sources that mobile phones of some of the rafting expedition members were active and as such received phone calls at the place of occurrence. Whose phone rang? Is he arrested and interrogated?
27. The deceased originally hailed from Kurung Kumey. He could easily swim in the turbulent rivers of Kurung Kumey. Hence, why did the rafting expedition members coin the theory of death by drowning in a mild river?
28. If at all the deceased died of drowning, then why did his body had no symptoms of drowning?
29. Why some of the apparels of the deceased are missing?
30. The deceased never used Pin lock in his mobile phone but when the phone was given back by Mr. Ngurang Abraham, it was found to be pin locked and contents of the mobile phones are now not assessable. Now the question arises as to:-
(I). From where did Mr. Ngurang Abraham get the mobile phone?
(II) Who manipulated the mobile phone by putting pin lock in it?
31. Why is his wallet missing?
32. The three girls stated that, they were ordered to switch off their mobile phones? Who ordered so? Hence, it is apparently clear that the mobile phones were ordered to be switched off prior to the commission of the crime/murder.
33. Why are the other 4 girls not traceable? Are they intentionally underground or compelled to be underground or is there someone hiding/harbouring them fearing that the truth/modus operandi might be disclosed?
34. Whether the other 4 girls not traceable because they are the girl friends or concubines of some of the rafting expedition members?
Here is not a petty case but a very sensational case of clear cut murder which is a grave offence. Hence:-
(I) Why is there no arrest till date?
(II) Whether the law is different for rich and the powerful?
(III) Is there any external pressure?
(IV) Whether all the numerous circumferential evidences are sufficient enough for the Investigating Authority to arrest all the rafting expedition members?
Delay in arrest and custodial interrogation may lead to tampering/destruction of evidences and thereby the very purpose of SIT investigation would be defeated.
Neither, we the victim’s family members nor the Achi Dopum Welfare Society accuse anyone specifically or personally in this case but prima facie from circumstantial evidences, it is a clear case of Murder involving more than one person. The truth has to come out.
I have high hope on SIT and without doubt I sure that the SIT will not upset the aggrieved family members and the denizens of Arunachal Pradesh by preparing a charge sheet – strong and effective enough to convict the murderers.