Krishna Bhandari vs State of Manipur

SHAMURAILATPAM
SUSHIL SHARMA
Digitally signed by
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
Date: 2026.05.11 18:19:59 +05'30'


REPORTABLE

Sl. No. 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL

Crl.A. No. 23 of 2025

Krishna Bhandari, aged about 32 years, S/o Karna Bhandari
of Ramrei Khullen Village, P.S.- Litan, Ukhrul District,
Manipur, presently lodged at Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa,
Imphal East District, Manipur.
……Appellant
-Versus-

The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner
(Home), Govt. of Manipur, Old Secretariat Complex,
Babupra, P.O. & P.S. – Imphal, District Imphal West,
Manipur- 795001.
….. Respondent

BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA

For the Appellant Mr. A. Gautam Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent Mr. RK Umakanta, Senior Advocate
and State Public Prosecutor,
instructed by Mr. W. Niranjit, Deputy
Government Advocate

Date of Hearing 11.05.2026
Date of Judgment and Order

11.05.2026


JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(ORAL)

(M. Sundar, CJ)


[1] The following abbreviations/short forms are used in this
order :
Page 1 of 7

Sl.
No.
Abbreviation/Short Form Full Form/Expansion
1. impugned judgment 27.09.2018 judgment and order
in S.T. Case No. 8 of 2017 on the
file of the Court of Sessions
Judge, Ukhrul
2. said Sessions Court the court which made the
impugned judgment i.e., the
Court of Sessions Judge, Ukhrul
3. IPC Indian Penal Code (Act No. 45 of
1860)
4. Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974)
5. BNSS Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 46 of
2023)

[2] Captioned criminal appeal is directed against a judgment
th
and order dated 27 September, 2018 in S.T. Case No. 8 of 2017 on the
file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Ukhrul. This ‘27.09.2018 judgment
and order’ is being referred to as ‘impugned judgment’ and the Court
which made the impugned judgment i.e., the ‘Court of Sessions Judge,
Ukhrul’ is being referred to as ‘said Sessions Court’ both for the sake of
convenience and clarity.
[3] In the hearing today, Mr. A. Gautam Sharma, learned
counsel on record for the sole appellant and Mr. RK Umakanta, learned
senior advocate and State Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of Mr.
W. Niranjit Singh, learned State Counsel for the sole respondent are
before this Court (physical court).
[4] The main criminal appeal was taken up with the consent of
learned counsel on both sides.
[5] Short facts, shorn off elaboration i.e., factual matrix in a
nutshell containing facts imperative for appreciating this order are that
Page 2 of 7

the impugned judgment is one of conviction, convicting the appellant to
rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of fifty thousand rupees to be
realized from his wages of rigorous imprisonment and paid to the
complainant; that it is to be noted that this sentence/punishment has
been awarded to the appellant for an alleged offence under Section 300
IPC punishable under Section 302 IPC; that the alleged occurrence was
on 10.08.2013; that the impugned order proceeds on the basis that the
appellant pleaded guilty when the charge was read out and explained to
the appellant and asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged
or claims to be tried; that the captioned appeal has been presented in
this Court on 27.10.2025.
[6] As regards the impugned judgment, it records that the
charge (charge for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC) for
the alleged offence of assaulting the victim (to be noted victim is
stepmother of appellant) with the intention of causing death by using a
dao with bamboo handle, appellant pleaded guilty but in the same breath
the impugned judgment has also recorded that the appellant pleaded for
having the case tried in accordance with law.
[7] As regards sentence, the impugned judgment records that
the appellant sought to consider vide Section 304 part II of IPC whereas
the Prosecutor sought awarding sentence vide Section 302 of IPC but
there is no discussion about sentencing in the impugned judgment.
[8] This Court had the benefit of perusing copies of the charge
and the plea of the accused. A scanned reproduction of this part of the
Page 3 of 7

record as placed before this Court by the learned Prosecutor is as
follows:


Page 4 of 7

[9] A careful perusal of the question and answer recorded by
the Sessions Court brings to light that it has been recorded that the
appellant pleaded guilty but however, he wanted to be tried according to
law.
[10] Faced with the above scenario, learned Prosecutor very
fairly consented to have the captioned matter sent back to the said
Sessions Court for trial. We record the submission of learned Public
Prosecutor made at the Bar.
[11] Before concluding, this Court deems it appropriate to write
that as already alluded to supra, as regards sentence, that it was a plea
of sentence vide Section 304 Part II (para 2 of IPC) as opposed to the
Prosecutor’s plea for a sentence vide Section 302 IPC. Therefore, it is
open to the Sessions Court to consider resorting inter-alia to sub-Section
Page 5 of 7

(2) of Section 222 of Cr.P.C. but we hasten to add that this is the
complete autonomy of the said Sessions Court.
[12] Before writing the operative portion, this Court deems it
appropriate to write that the powers of appellate Court vide Section 386
of Cr.P.C. (427 of BNSS) is inter-alia to direct a retrial. In the case at
hand, it may be trial per se rather than retrial but in the light of the fair
position taken by learned Prosecutor, we deem it appropriate to send the
matter back to said Sessions Court for trial/retrial afresh keeping in mind
the observations made by this Court supra.
[13] The said Sessions Court, considering the facts and
circumstances of the matter and also taking into account the manner in
which appellant is circumstanced (remains incarcerated from 2013 for
nearly 13 years now) is requested to take up the Sessions case as
expeditiously as the official business of the said Sessions Court would
permit conduct trial/retrial and conclude the matter as expeditiously as
the official business of the said Sessions Court would permit. The order
of conviction dated 20.07.2018 and the impugned judgment dated
27.09.2018 made by the said Sessions Court are set aside for the
purpose of facilitating a trial afresh/retrial.
[14] In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive
reasoning supra, in and vide in instant consent order, captioned criminal
appeal is disposed of setting aside the order of conviction dated
20.07.2018 and impugned judgment dated 27.09.2018 (obviously
without expressing any view or opinion on the merits of the case) and
Page 6 of 7

sending the matter back to said Sessions Court i.e., the Court of
Sessions Judge, Ukhrul for retrial/trial afresh which shall be considered
and concluded at the earliest subject to the official business of the said
Sessions Court keeping in mind the observations made supra. There

shall be no order as to costs.



JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

FR/NFR
Sushil



P.S. I : Upload forthwith
P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded in High Court
website inter-alia as the same is QR coded.


Page 7 of 7