Back
Manipur High Court
T. N. R. TIRUMALPAD, J.
Atum Lengmei
Versus
Manipur Administration
Criminal (Jail) Appeal Case No.25(A) of 1960
Decided On : 01-02-1961
CRIMINAL LAW - WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT - SECTION 342 I.P.C. - CONVICTION UPHELD - SENTENCE UNDER SECTION 342 I.P.C. - FAILURE TO IMPOSE - ERROR - SENTENCE IMPOSED - PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT (20 OF 1958), SECTION 6 - APPLICABILITY - REPORT FROM PROBATION OFFICER - NECESSITY - DESIGNATION OF A PERSON TO ACT AS PROBATION OFFICER - EXCEPTIONAL CASE - CIRCUMSTANCES - PUNISHMENT - MAXIMUM SENTENCE UNDER SECTION 342 I.P.C. IMPOSED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, aged 19 and 18 years, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (I), Manipur, for offenses under Sections 395/397 and 342 I.P.C. and sentenced to 7 years' R.I. under Sections 395/397 I.P.C. The case against them was that on 9-7-59, they, along with 150 Naga Hostiles, committed dacoity in the houses of Haomaking (P.W.2) and Naganing (P.W.4) in Makhui Khunou village and took away Rs.300/- and Rs.18/- respectively. They also wrongfully confined P.Ws.1 to 4 in the School in the said village after tying up their arms with ropes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants were guilty of wrongful confinement under Section 342 I.P.C. but not guilty of dacoity under Sections 395/397 I.P.C. The court held that the evidence against the appellants regarding the two instances of dacoity was insufficient and that the learned Judge was wrong in finding the appellants guilty of dacoity.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants were guilty of dacoity under Sections 395/397 I.P.C.? 2. Whether the appellants were guilty of wrongful confinement under Section 342 I.P.C.? 3. Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in not imposing a sentence on the appellants for their conviction under Section 342 I.P.C.? 4. Whether the appellants should be sentenced under Section 342 I.P.C. and if so, what should be the appropriate sentence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence against the appellants regarding the two instances of dacoity was insufficient and that the learned Judge was wrong in finding the appellants guilty of dacoity. The court reasoned that mere presence of the appellants among the Naga Hostiles who visited the village that night was not sufficient and that it was necessary to show that the appellants were in the body of persons who actually went to the houses of P.Ws.2 and 4 and extorted money or at least aided in extorting the money. 2. The court held that the appellants were guilty of wrongful confinement under Section 342 I.P.C. The court relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 that all the four of them were confined in the L.P. School and that their hands were tied with ropes. The court also relied on the admission by the appellants in their statements in the Committing Court that they arrested P.Ws.2 and 3 and confined them to the L.P. School. 3. The court held that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in not imposing a sentence on the appellants for their conviction under Section 342 I.P.C. The court reasoned that the wrongful confinement was not committed in the course of the committing of the dacoity and that there was nothing in the Indian Penal Code or in the Criminal Procedure Code which says that no separate sentences would be necessary for the separate offences found to have been committed by them. 4. The court held that the appellants should be sentenced under Section 342 I.P.C. and that the appropriate sentence was the maximum punishment under Section 342 I.P.C., namely, R.I. for one year.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 395/397, I.P.C. were set aside. The conviction of the appellants under Section 342 I.P.C. was upheld. Both the appellants were sentenced to R.I. for one year under Section 342 I.P.C.
2. The appellant Atum Lengmei is aged 19 years and the appellant Rangthieu Lengmei is aged 18 years. The case against them was that on 9-7-59 at about 7-30 p.m. they along with 150 Naga Hostiles armed with deadly weapons committed dacoity in the house of Haomaking (P.W.2) in Makhui Khunou village and took away Rs.300/- and that they committed another dacoity in the same village at about the same time in the house of Naganing (P.W.4) and took away Rs.18/-. The further case against them was that they along with other hostiles wrongfully confined P.Ws.1 to 4 in the School in the said 33d village after tying up their arms with ropes. P.Ws.1 and 2 made a report on 11-7-59 about the occurrence to one Hem Bahadur Rai, the officer in charge of the Eastern frontier Rifles.
Twaiwaichong Camp, which was at a distance of 10 miles from the village.
The said Officer sent a wireless message to the Police at Imphal on 12-7-59. P.W.8 registered a case under the report Ext.A/5 which he prepared and he handed over the investigation to P.W.9 the O/C. in charge of Kangpokpi Police Outpost on 13-7-59 as the occurrence took place within his jurisdiction. He took up investigation and examined some of the witnesses and he issued notices to all the Police Stations for the arrest of the Naga Hostiles and to communicate the fact of arrest to him for holding identification parade.
3. On 21-7-59 P.W.5 who had by then become the Officer in charge of Imphal Police Station got information that certain Naga Hostiles were roaming in the Khwairamband Bazar in Imphal and he found the two appellants loitering in a suspicious manner and arrested and brought them to the Imphal Police Station. According to P.W.5 he handed over the custody of the appellants to P.W.9 for taking necessary action. He did not say on what date he did so after the arrest of the appellants. But P.W.9 stated that he got information only on 15-8-59 about the arrest of the appellants. What happened between 21-7-59 and 15-8-1959 and why there was so much delay have not been spoken to by any witness.
4. On 17-8-1959, P.W.9 applied to the Additional District Magistrate, Manipur, for holding a Test Identification Parade vide - Ext.A/8. Accordingly, the Magistrates P.W.6 and P.W.7 held separate Identification Parades on 17-8-1959 and 19-8-1959 respectively. At the first identification parade held by the Magistrate (P.W.6), there were 14 suspects including the two appellants and the suspects were mixed up with 41 other prisoners. P.Ws.2 and 4 were the witnesses who were brought for the purpose of identifying the persons involved in the two dacoities which took place in Makhui Khunou. P.W.4 identified the two appellants as the persons whom he saw when they came to his village. P.W.2 was unable to identify any of the suspects. It may be mentioned here that the two dacoities were said to have been committed in the houses of P.Ws.2 and 4 respectively. At the second test identification parade P.W.1 identified the second appellant and P.W.3 identified the first appellant.
5. The Additional District Magistrate conducted the committal proceedings and he committed the two appellants to take their trial at the Sessions. He framed charges against them that on 9th July, 1959 at about 7-30 p.m. they committed dacoity in the houses of Haomakeng and Nganing in the village Makhui Khunou and further that on the same date the appellants wrong fully confined P.Ws.1 to 4 at the L.P. School in Makhui Khunou.
6. At the Sessions Trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) framed one charge under S.395 that the appellants on or about 9-7-59 at about 7-30 p.m., committed dacoity in the houses of P.Ws.2
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
