LAISHRAM LEIRENMACHA Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant herein is praying for grant/issue of a certificate of fitness that the case of the applicant is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court of India and that the case of the applicant involves a substantial question of law of general importance in the facts and circumstances and nature of the present case.

(2.) Facts may be stated briefly. The applicant was charged for the commission of offences punishable under Sec. 365/342/344, IPC on a complaint lodged against him and two other persons (applicant's own uncles) by the respondent No. 2 before the Court of chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoubel, Manipur. The allegation was that on 17-1-1991 at about 4.30 P.M. the complainant (respondent No. 2), while returning home on her cycle was kidnapped by the applicant and the said two other persons and that she was kept confined in the room of the applicant till she escaped at about 8.30 P.M. on the same day. It was further alleged that during the period of confinement the respondent No. 2 was molested by the applicant. Three witnesses were produced on behalf of the complainant. However, no defence witness was examined. It is averred that though no materials on record corroborated and supported the prosecution case, the trial Court convicted the applicant alone on the basis of the unfounded allegation. It may be stated that other two co-accused persons had been discharged on 23-3-1991. Hearing on the quantum of sentence was taken up on 12-3-1991. One of the submissions made on behalf of the applicant was to invoke the relevant provision of probation of offenders Act. It may be stated that the applicant was convicted and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 365 IPC and three months rigorous imprisonment and also six months rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 342 and 344 IPC, directing that the sentences would run concurrently.

(3.) Criminal Appeal No. 7/92/1/93 was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur West. The said appeal was disposed of by order dated 17-9-1993. While dismissing the said appeal a direction was issued that the trial Court should hear on the quantum of fine to be imposed on the accused. It is contended that the Appellate Court failed to consider and peruse relevant points of law including the submission for invoking the power of releasing the accused on probation without convicting him at once to undergo the sentences as provided under Sec. 360 of the Code of Criminal procedure or under Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.