Krishna Bhandari vs State Of Manipur

M. Sundar, CJ

[1] The following abbreviations/short forms are used in this order :

Sl.

No.

Abbreviation/Short Form

Full Form/Expansion

1.

impugned judgment

27.09.2018 judgment and order in S.T. Case No. 8 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Ukhrul

2.

said Sessions Court

the court which made the impugned judgment i.e., the Court of Sessions Judge, Ukhrul

3.

IPC

Indian Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1860)

4.

Cr.P.C.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974)

5.

BNSS

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 46 of 2023)

[2] Captioned criminal appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 27th September, 2018 in S.T. Case No. 8 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Ukhrul. This '27.09.2018 judgment and order' is being referred to as 'impugned judgment' and the Court which made the impugned judgment i.e., the 'Court of Sessions Judge, Ukhrul'is being referred to as 'said Sessions Court' both for the sake of convenience and clarity.

[3] In the hearing today, Mr. A. Gautam Sharma, learned counsel on record for the sole appellant and Mr. RK Umakanta, learned senior advocate and State Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of Mr. W. Niranjit Singh, learned State Counsel for the sole respondent are before this Court (physical court).

[4] The main criminal appeal was taken up with the consent of learned counsel on both sides.

[5] Short facts, shorn off elaboration i.e., factual matrix in a nutshell containing facts imperative for appreciating this order are that the impugned judgment is one of conviction, convicting the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of fifty thousand rupees to be realized from his wages of rigorous imprisonment and paid to the complainant; that it is to be noted that this sentence/punishment has been awarded to the appellant for an alleged offence under Section 300 IPC punishable under Section 302 IPC; that the alleged occurrence was on 10.08.2013; that the impugned order proceeds on the basis that the appellant pleaded guilty when the charge was read out and explained to the appellant and asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried; that the captioned appeal has been presented in this Court on 27.10.2025.

[6] As regards the impugned judgment, it records that the charge (charge for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC) for the alleged offence of assaulting the victim (to be noted victim is stepmother of appellant) with the intention of causing death by using a dao with bamboo handle, appellant pleaded guilty but in the same breath the impugned judgment has also recorded that the appellant pleaded for having the case tried in accordance with law.

[7] As regards sentence, the impugned judgment records that the appellant sought to consider vide Section 304 part II of IPC whereas the Prosecutor sought awarding sentence vide Section 302 of IPC but there is no discussion about sentencing in the impugned judgment.

[8] This Court had the benefit of perusing copies of the charge and the plea of the accused. A scanned reproduction of this part of the record as placed before this Court by the learned Prosecutor is as follows:

[9] A careful perusal of the question and answer recorded by the Sessions Court brings to light that it has been recorded that the appellant pleaded guilty but however, he wanted to be tried according to law.

[10] Faced with the above scenario, learned Prosecutor very fairly consented to have the captioned matter sent back to the said Sessions Court for trial. We record the submission of learned Public Prosecutor made at the Bar.

[11] Before concluding, this Court deems it appropriate to write that as already alluded to supra, as regards sentence, that it was a plea of sentence vide Section 304 Part II (para 2 of IPC) as opposed to the Prosecutor's plea for a sentence vide Section 302 IPC. Therefore, it is open to the Sessions Court to consider resorting inter-alia to sub-Section (2) of Section 222 of Cr.P.C. but we hasten to add that this is the complete autonomy of the said Sessions Court.

[12] Before writing the operative portion, this Court deems it appropriate to write that the powers of appellate Court vide Section 386 of Cr.P.C. (427 of BNSS) is inter-alia to direct a retrial. In the case at hand, it may be trial per se rather than retrial but in the light of the fair position taken by learned Prosecutor, we deem it appropriate to send the matter back to said Sessions Court for trial/retrial afresh keeping in mind the observations made by this Court supra.

[13] The said Sessions Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the matter and also taking into account the manner in which appellant is circumstanced (remains incarcerated from 2013 for nearly 13 years now) is requested to take up the Sessions case as expeditiously as the official business of the said Sessions Court would permit conduct trial/retrial and conclude the matter as expeditiously as the official business of the said Sessions Court would permit. The order of conviction dated 20.07.2018 and the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2018 made by the said Sessions Court are set aside for the purpose of facilitating a trial afresh/retrial.

[14] In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning supra, in and vide in instant consent order, captioned criminal appeal is disposed of setting aside the order of conviction dated 20.07.2018 and impugned judgment dated 27.09.2018 (obviously without expressing any view or opinion on the merits of the case) and sending the matter back to said Sessions Court i.e., the Court of Sessions Judge, Ukhrul for retrial/trial afresh which shall be considered and concluded at the earliest subject to the official business of the said Sessions Court keeping in mind the observations made supra. There shall be no order as to costs.