Morung Express News
Dimapur | July 8
The terrible ghost of the year 1999 killing of two students in Chumukedima by bodyguards of the then Nagaland Minister of Roads & Bridges I Imkong has finally risen from its grave today with an ugly revelation: Both strong direct and circumstantial evidence established beyond doubt that three of the five accused police personnel were guilty of shooting dead two students and maiming another, without any provocation on May 29, near the Patkai bridge, Chumukedima. But they – constable naiks Ato Yimchunger, Akaho Sumi and Mayang Ao – were acquitted on the ground that the “prosecution failed to prove the case.” The three students were traveling toward Kohima in a Maruti Zen that fateful day. The police personnel had even admitted to the crime, documents show.
Extensive investigative documents and court minutes accessed by The Morung Express show that the three students Atina Suokrie (shot dead, on spot), Michael Mary (succumbed to bullet wounds) and Pangertemsu Ao (maimed, right arm amputated) were chased down near the bridge and sprayed with as many as 19 rounds of bullets, shot point-blank from two Ak-47s and an M-22; that the three students ‘firing with a small arm’ was unsubstantiated; that the shooting was undeniably unprovoked and motiveless except to satiate the guards’ anger after being shouted at when the speeding police escort Gypsy nearly collided with the Maruti Zen.
Seven years later, today, the Guwahati High Court has come out with an order flaying the judgment of the then ADC (J). The high court has minced no words in its observance issued on May 17, 2007. It has severely castigated the judgment of the ADC (J) Dimapur as ‘serious infirmities’ and “demonstrated complete lack of knowledge of criminal trial procedures,” “against the evidence on record,” and that the ADC (J) has “betrayed knowledge of even fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence and procedure of law.” This must be reflected in the service record of the ADC (J), K Chophy, declared the Guwahati High Court’s order (sic) issued on May 17 this year.
Records show critical evidence (including a corroborative forensic testimony), which, according to a lawyer, is enough to prosecute all the accused ‘to hell.’ But they were let off scot-free without punishment by the then ADC (Judicial) of Dimapur, on the ground that present Congress Leader of Opposition I Imkong’s bodyguards “acted in self-defense.” The records show hardly any reference – either investigative or direct proof – regarding the “self-defense” aspect except a note that no arms were found on the students, leave alone even any indication that they fired upon the ministers’ bodyguards as claimed by the accused. In the minds of the prosecution and even the defense attorneys, the mystery lives on why the Dimapur judge would let off the five accused – all free men today – even when presented with critically indisputable evidence. The question of political pressure or duress is not being ruled out.
The fateful day: 5:00pm, May 29, 1999.
(The established events as recorded by the documents and in the observance of the Guwahati High Court and the verdict of the Dimapur ADC (J)) The minister on the fateful day is traveling to Dimapur from Kohima. Around 5:30 pm, at 6th Mile, Dimapur, a near collision takes place between the pilot escort vehicle (a Maruti Gypsy) of the minister and a Maruti Zen (NL-01/2552) with three youths inside. The three shout back at the escort party.
At the minister’s residence, the police personnel SI Lipok Ao, constables Ato Yimchunger, Akaho Sema, Mayang Ao and Yeangphong Konyak and driver Onen Ao take leave of the minister saying that the next day is Sunday and their arms have to be deposited to the quarter-guard (in Khopanalla, near Dimapur). The accused then, instead of leaving for the quarter-guard as claimed, proceed towards Chumukedima in search of the Maruti Zen.
Some distance from the iron bridge near Patkai Christian College, the accused find the Maruti Zen parked alongside the road. The occupants are resting. The escort Gypsy then swerves to the Zen’s front, blocking any escape route. When the Zen tries to reverse, Constables Ato Yimchunger, Akaho Sumi and Mayang Ao open fire point-blank, spraying the vehicle and its three occupants with as many as 19 rounds of bullets. Atina Suokrie dies instantly from a bullet each in the head, right elbow and thighs. Michael receives a bullet each in the abdomen and right arm. Pangertemsu is shot in the right shoulder, critically. His shoulder is shattered.
The accused party then proceeds down to Diphupar police station. The guards report that occupants of a Maruti Zen had fired on the police escort. The escort party then retaliated with their weapons upon the youths, Diphupar police station is told. The party then reached 4th mile “but could not locate the Maruti Zen.” (The shooting took place near the iron bridge, Chumukedima.) Later, the police find the Maruti Zen near the site of the incident. The dead body of Adina is still inside the vehicle. The other two are not found. Blood, shattered glass and about 12 entrance bullet holes are found on the Zen.
Later it is established that the seriously injured Michael had manage to drive to a nearby students’ hostel, Valley View Hostel, within Patkai Christian College area, for help. Still in the car are Atina’s dead body and Pangertemsu. Michael and Pangertemsu are bleeding heavily. This takes place around 6pm. No body is there in the hostel.
By the time the warden of the hostel arrives, the Maruti Zen has left. Later it is established by the surviving victim’s account that after leaving the hostel, Michael had stopped the car near the bridge, since he could not drive any further. Shortly, a person picks up the two and is admitted into medical care. Owing to the severe conditions of the critically injured, Atina’s body is left behind in the car. Later, Michael would die from his bullet wounds while undergoing treatment in Delhi while Pangertemsu’s right arm would be amputated from the shoulder.
• Forensic investigations (ballistics from Guwahati in this case) reveal that constables Ato Yimchunger and Akaho Sumi fired 8 rounds each from their AK-47s, while Constable Mayang Ao fired 3 rounds from his M-22 rifle.
• SI Lipok Ao, Constable Yeangphong Konyak and driver Onen Ao did not fire.
• In the documents, it is found that the only contention of the defense/accused is that they ‘acted in self-defense’ and that the escort was fired upon. No proof given.
• No firearm found on the victims; claim of the accused that the occupants fired at the escort is unsubstantiated. Documents say this claim is “unbelievable.”
• Accused persons actually admitted to shooting the three.
• ADC (J) Chophy claims ambiguously in the verdict that the “post mortem report” is one of the major irregularities. Does not specify what irregularities, the verdict shows.
• There is a doubt “which bullet” hit which of the three victims, the then ADC (J) observes.
• All accused acquitted.
• Seven years later, Guwahati High Court notices the verdict. Examines the case.
• Finds severe ‘infirmities’ in the judgment of ADC (J) K Chophy.
• Has remanded the case back to the court of Dimapur ADC (J) for examining the accused.
