Thokchom Suraj Singh vs State Of Manipur on 6 April, 2026

    0
    46
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Manipur High Court

    Thokchom Suraj Singh vs State Of Manipur on 6 April, 2026

    Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh

    Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh

    SHOUGRAKPAM      Digitally signed by
                     SHOUGRAKPAM
                                                                         IN. 19
    DEVANANDA        DEVANANDA SINGH
                     Date: 2026.04.07 13:36:11
    SINGH            +05'30'
    
    
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                       AT IMPHAL
         MC(Crl. A.) No. 12 of 2024
         Thokchom Suraj Singh                             ... Applicant
               Vs.
         State of Manipur                                 ... Respondent
    
                               B E F O R E
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
    
                                             O R D E R
    

    06-04-2026

    [1] Heard Mr. M. Gunedhor, learned counsel appearing for
    the applicant and Mr. H. Samarjit, learned senior counsel and PP
    assisted by Mr. Phungyo Zingkhai, learned Deputy GA appearing for
    the respondent.

    SPONSORED

    [2] By a judgment and order dated 27-07-2023 passed by the
    Fast Track Special Court No. 1, Manipur in Special Trial (POCSO)
    Case No. 03/2020/10 of 2020, the present applicant was convicted
    for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
    Thereafter, sentence was passed on 31-07-2023 by the said learned
    Fast Track Special Court No. 1, Manipur, sentencing the applicant to
    undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years with fine of
    Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand).

    [3] Against the said judgment, the applicant filed a Statutory
    Appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC challenging the said judgment
    and order of the said sentence. However, there has been a delay of 172

    MC(CRL. A.) No. 12 of 2024 Contd…./-

    -2-

    days in filing the said appeal, hence the present application has been
    filed for condoning the said delay.

    [4] Mr. M. Gunedhor, learned counsel appearing for the
    applicant submitted that the family members of the applicant are
    very poor and due to financial difficulties, it took time in filing the said
    appeal as well as the present condonation application. It has also
    been submitted that as the applicant has been lodged in the jail after
    passing of the said sentence, it was very difficult for him to have access
    to legal advice and to consult an advocate and also because of the
    financial constraint faced by the family members of the applicant, some
    delay has been caused in preferring the said appeal. The learned
    counsel further submitted that there was no intentional and deliberate
    negligence on the part of the applicant in preferring the said appeal and
    unless the said delay in preferring the said appeal is condoned, the
    applicant will suffer an irreparable loss and injury. The learned counsel,
    accordingly, prays for allowing the present condonation application and
    to hear the connected appeal on merit.

    [5] In the objection filed by the respondents in the present
    condonation application, no substantial objection has been raised by the
    respondents, however, it has been averred in the said objection that
    the applicant has failed to provide sufficient reason for condoning the
    delay as he is required to give reasonable and proper explanation for the
    cause of delay. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that
    the present condonation application may be rejected.

     MC(CRL. A.) No. 12 of 2024                                      Contd..../-
                                          -3-
    
    
    [6]         On considering the averments made in the present
    

    application filed by the parties and also after hearing the submission
    advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court is
    satisfied that there was no negligence or lapses on the part of the
    applicant in preferring the connected appeal and that the delay has
    been caused due to the financial hardship faced by the family members
    of the applicant and as the applicant has been lodged in jail after he
    has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment. Accordingly, this
    court find sufficient reason for condoning such delay.

    [7] In view of the above, the present condonation application is
    hereby allowed by condoning the delay of 172 days in preferring the
    said appeal. This court is also of the view that it will be in the interest of
    justice to hear the connected appeal on merit.

    With the aforesaid direction, the present application is
    disposed of.

    Registry is directed to number the connected appeal and to
    list it for Admission, if the same is otherwise found to be in order.

    
    
    
    
                                                              JUDGE
    Devananda
    
    
    
    
     MC(CRL. A.) No. 12 of 2024                                        Contd..../-
     



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here