Madam,
In conection to the incident of May 3, 2005 at Model Village in Dimapur District, wherein one Aheto Sumi, son of Hetoshe of Surumi Village was beaten to death by the Villagers allegedly after having been caught red-handed while commiting theft in a fishery pond at night. We the Chakhroma Public Organization are constrained to state the following few lines for your kind perusal, consideration and necessary action:
1. In every civilized society across the world, criminal jurisprudence does not permit ‘double jeopardy’ of an accused person as a matter of cardinal principal. In the instant case, controversial as may be, the state has directed the Model Village Council to pay a penalty of Rs.500,000/ (Rupees five lakhs only) to the legal heirs of the deceased, as per the written demand made on their behalf by the Sumi community, Sugar Mill Village and the Surumi Union Dimapur, and the said direction has been fully complied with the said Village Council. Nevertheless, we are now shocked and surprised to learn that, despite the aforesaid, the State is still prosecuting all the accused persons who are from Model Village, in the criminal case registered against by the State in connection with the said incident.
2. In the context of our multifaceted tribal society, we could understand the difficulties faced by the State and it’s administrations in handling situations arising out of inter-tribal conflicts especislly when it turns ugly, critical and sensitive. Nevertheless, we fail to understand the wisdom the decision to defuse such a situation simply by acceding to the pressure tactics of a party without realizing its far reaching consequences, as has happened in the instant case. The directions given to the Model Village Council by none other than the State to pay up the penalty of Rs.500,000/ in pursuance to the demand made by the other party, was outrageous and highly questionable in as much as the same has set a precedent which, in our considered opinion, cannot be practically followed by the State if the ‘principle of parity’ is sought to be applied by the aggrieved party in all similar incidents involving two or more groups drawn on tribal divide occur in future. Hence, we place on record our strong condemnation of the said decision.
We, therefore, sincerely request you to immediately withdraw and dismiss the said criminal case in the interest of justice and fair play, failing of which we shall be compelled to take up the matter further in the appropriate forum. You may please be informed that this representation is being submitted as per resolutions adopted in the Executive meeting of the CPO held on June 29, 2005 at Chumukedima Block 1 Hall.
For & on behalf of CPO,
Zhasa Vüprü
General Secretary, CPO.
