Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 3716
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Siddharth Mridul, Anish Dayal, JJ.
Khoiram Ranjit Singh @ Rocky @ Great Macha @ Poerei Meitei – Appellant
Versus
State (Nia) – Respondent
CRL.A. 191 of 2023 & CRL.M.A. 3163 of 2023 and CRL.A. 452 of 2023 & CRL.M.A. 15400 of 2023
Decided On : 21-09-2023
Ms. Tara Narula, Advocate, (DHCLSC) with Ms. Bijaharini Avula, Advocate, for the Appellant in CRL.A. 191/2023 & CRL.M.A. 3163/2023.
Ms. Astha, Advocate (DHCLSC), for the Appellant in CRL.A. 452/2023 & CRL.M.A. 15400/2023.
Mr. Gautam Narayan, SPP with Ms. Zeenat Malik, PP, Ms. Asmita Singh, Mr. Harshit Goel, Mr. Siddhant Singh, Advocates with Mr. R.K. Pandey, DSP-CIO.
The default sentence imposed on the appellants was found to be excessive and not in line with the principles of fine and imprisonment.
Headnote:
FINE - Imposition of Fine - Section 63 to 70 IPC - The court found the fine and default sentence imposed on the appellants to be excessive and not in line with the principles of fine and imprisonment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for being active cadres of a banned terrorist organization and involved in anti-national and terrorist activities. They pleaded guilty during trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the appellants' financial condition and remorse as mitigating factors in their favor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the default sentence imposed on the appellants was excessive and not in line with the principles of fine and imprisonment.
Result: The court reduced the fine and default sentence for each appellant based on their financial condition and guilty plea.
JUDGMENT
Anish Dayal, J.
1. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants herein, being Khoiram Ranjit Singh @ Rocky @ Great Macha @ Poerei Meitei (referred to as "Appellant 1") and Pukhrihongam Prem Kumar Meiti @ PK @ Ibomcha (referred to as "Appellant 2"), under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 ("NIA Act") seeking reduction of fine and/or reduction of the default sentence imposed on the convicted appellants in NIA case No. RC-05/2017/NIA/DLI (vide order dated 29th April 2022 by the Ld. ASJ, Patiala House Courts, Delhi). The allegations made against the appellants were that they were active cadres of the Kangleipak Communist Party ("KCP"), a banned terrorist organisation, and were allegedly involved in anti-national and terrorist activities in Manipur and other parts of India. In furtherance of a larger conspiracy, it was alleged that they procured arms and ammunition to carry out terrorist activities in other parts of India including Delhi and NCR.
The FIR and the Investigation
2. The proceedings against the appellants have their origin in the First Information Report ("FIR") bearing No. 02/2017 lodged by the Special Cell, Delhi Police on 12th January, 2017. In compliance with order No. F. No.11011/15/2017-IS.IV, dated 15th March, 2017, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, the National Investigation Agency ("NIA") registered the instant case as RC 05/2017/NIA/DLI on 16th March, 2017. Further investigation revealed that the appellants were over ground workers of the KCP and had committed various crimes in furtherance of their role. Appellant 1 was involved in raising funds for the activities of the KCP. Two hand grenades were recovered from the abode of Appellant 1 on 17th January, 2017. On 12th January, 2017 disclosure statement of Appellant 2 revealed that on the instructions of Appellant 1, Appellant 2 collected four hand grenades, one 9 mm English pistol, and six 9 mm live cartridges from another co-accused Sanabam Inobi.
The Charges
3. Subsequently, the NIA filed the Final Report/Charge Sheet No. 06/2017 on 10th July, 2017 against three accused persons, including the appellants, inter alia under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"), the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ("UAPA"), and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 ("ESA").
4. On 18th August, 2020, charges against Appellant 1 were framed under Section 120B of IPC, Section 17 of UAPA read with 120B of IPC, Section 18B of UAPA read with 120B of IPC, Section 20 of UAPA read with 120B of IPC, Section 38 of UAPA read with 120B of IPC, Section 40 of UAPA read with 120B of IPC, and under Sections 17, 18, 18B, 20/38, 40 and 23 of UAPA and Sections 5 and 6 of ESA. Charges against Appellant 2 were framed under Section 120B of IPC, Section 17 of UAPA read with 120B of IPC, 18B of UAPA read with 120B of IPC, Section 20 of UAPA read with 120B of IPC, Section 38 of UAPA read with 120B of IPC, Section 40 of UAPA read with 120B of IPC, and under Sections 18, 20/38, 23 of UAPA and Sections 5 of ESA, as well as Sections 25 and 7 of the Arms Act, 1959.
5. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial.
Conviction and Sentencing
6. Thereafter, during trial, by way of separate applications under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") on 1st April, 2022, the appellants accepted the charges framed against them and pleaded guilty to the same. The Ld. ASJ noted that the appellants' voluntary plea of guilt was indicative of remorse, and therefore, was a mitigating factor in their favour.
7. Furthermore, the Ld. ASJ called for the appellants' socio economic inquiry report ("SEI Report"). It revealed that Appellant 1's family consists of his aged mother, three children, and that his wife (a cancer patient herself) is the only earning member of the family and weaves for a living. The annual income of Appellant 1's family is Rs. 60,000/-; and they
