Philem Rajest @ Prem @ Robot Meitei vs State Of Manipur
2024 Latest Caselaw 163 Mani

Manipur High Court

Philem Rajest @ Prem @ Robot Meitei vs State Of Manipur on 3 May, 2024

SHAMURAILATPAM                     Digitally signed by
                                   SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL SHARMA
                                                                              Page |1
                                   Date: 2024.05.07 15:40:04 +05'30'

                                                                               Item No. 40
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                     AT IMPHAL

                                    Crl.A. No. 6 of 2019

    Philem Rajest @ Prem @ Robot Meitei
                                                                             Appellant
                                      Vs.
    State of Manipur
                                                                           Respondent

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

03.05.2024 Mr. W. Niranjit, learned PP, appears on behalf of Mr. Athouba

Khaidem, learned PP, appearing on behalf of the State of Manipur.

The present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 assails

the judgment and order dated 20th February, 2019 passed by the Court of Sessions

Judge, Imphal West in ST No. 74 of 2016 convicting the appellant under Sections

376 and 417 of the IPC for committing rape and cheating the victim.

Before proceeding further, it is observed that the appellant has been

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 8 (eight) years; and fine of Rs.

20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only, in view of his conviction for the offence

under Section 376 of IPC.

It is an admitted position that the commission of the offence took

place on 28th January, 2016.

A plain reading of the provision of Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal

Code, leaves no manner of doubt that, the minimum sentence stipulated in law for Page |2

the commission of the offence of rape at the relevant time, is rigorous imprisonment

of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years and which

may extend to imprisonment for life.

In view of the foregoing, it is considered appropriate to issue notice

to the appellant as to why the sentence awarded to him be not enhanced in

accordance with law.

Mr. S. Abung, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

prays for time to obtain instruction from the latter in this behalf.

Re-notify for further hearing on 06.06.2024.

Issue warrant for production of Philem Rajest @ Prem @ Robot Meitei

before the Court on the next date.

CHIEF JUSTICE Sushil