Timothy L. Changsan vs State Of Manipur

Sanjay Kumar, CJ

[1] Timothy L. Changsan @ Daddy is the appellant in these two unnumbered criminal appeals. Miscellaneous applications were filed by him in both

the appeals seeking condonation of the delay of 857 days in their presentation. He also filed miscellaneous applications in both cases seeking grant of

bail under Section 389 Cr.P.C.

[2] One of these appeals relates to the conviction of Timothy L. Changsan under Sections 6 & 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the POCSO Act’), and Section 506 IPC. This conviction was in Special Trial (POCSO) Case No. 1 of 2017 on the file of

the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Imphal West, vide Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2018. The consequential Order of Sentence was passed on

05.05.2018, whereby he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 6 of the POCSO Act; imprisonment for seven years under

Section 10 of the POCSO Act; and imprisonment for seven years under Section 506 IPC. The other appeal relates to the conviction of Timothy L.

Changsan under Section 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC in Special Trial (POCSO) Case No. 2 of 2017 on the file of the learned

Special Judge (POCSO), Imphal West, vide Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2018, and the consequential Order of Sentence dated 05.05.2018,

whereby he was sentenced to imprisonment on the same lines as in the earlier case.

 [3] It is significant to note that Timothy L. Changsan was absent on the date of the pronouncement of the judgment, viz., 30.04.2018, and again on

the date of hearing for imposition of the sentence, viz., 05.05.2018. As he was absent on 30.04.2018, a warrant of arrest was issued by the learned

Special Judge requiring his production on 05.05.2018 but the warrant was returned unexecuted with the report that he could not be found in his house

despite repeated searches and that he had left Imphal on 28.04.2018. Thereupon, the learned Special Judge considered the gravity of the offences that

Timothy L. Changsan had been found guilty of and proceeded to sentence him.

[4] In the applications filed for condonation of delay, Timothy L. Changsan claimed that he was confused by the misguiding advice given to him about

the consequences of his physical appearance before the learned Special Judge on the date of the judgment, i.e., 30.04.2018, and that he left Imphal in

good faith on 28.04.2018 and went to Guwahati to get better legal advice from Mr. AM Mazumder, Senior Advocate, Gauhati High Court. He stated

that he was in the process of consulting the said Senior Advocate till 25.11.2019, when he personally met the Senior Advocate at Guwahati and after

waiting for about 1 month, the junior counsel returned the file in the 1st week of January, 2020. He claimed that he engaged the present counsel for

preferring these appeals on 07.01.2020. He asserted that the present counsel applied for certified copies of the judgments under appeal and obtained

the same on 26.02.2020 but could not prefer the appeals immediately owing to COVID-19 and the concomitant curfews/restrictions.

[5] When the present applications were taken up for hearing on 04.02.2021, the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court informed the Bench that the counsel

on record was from Guwahati and that he was not aware of the listing of the cases. The matters were accordingly directed to be listed on 05.02.2021.

On 05.02.2021, Mr. TA Choudhury, learned counsel, appeared for Timothy L. Changsan and Mr. R.K. Umakanta, learned PP, appeared for the

State. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned PP as to the bonafides of Timothy L. Changsan as he had already been declared a

proclaimed offender. A suggestion was then made to Mr. TA Choudhury, learned counsel, that Timothy L. Changsan should appear through video

conferencing in the first instance. The learned counsel informed the Court that the appeal and other papers, including the vakalatnama, were signed by

Timothy L. Changsan in his presence and that he was willing to file a memo along with documents like Aadhaar/Pan Card etc., relating to Timothy L.

Changsan, to prove his bonafides. Taking note of this suggestion made by Mr. TA Choudhury, learned counsel, the cases were adjourned to

08.02.2021 for the appearance of Timothy L. Changsan through video conference.

[6] When the matters were taken up on 08.02.2021, Mr. TA Choudhury, learned counsel, appeared along with Timothy L. Changsan, who duly

identified himself. Mr. RK. Umakanta, learned PP, sought time to get instructions in the matter and the cases were accordingly adjourned to

04.03.2021. The Division Bench however directed that Timothy L. Changsan should appear along with his counsel on the next date of hearing, i.e.,

04.03.2021, and also on subsequent dates till his appearance was dispensed with.

[7] Today, when the matters were taken up for hearing, Mr. TA Choudhury, learned counsel, informed this Court that Timothy L. Changsan was not

present in the video conference and that the family members of Timothy L. Changsan had informed him that due to some personal difficulties,

Timothy L. Changsan was not in a position to join the video conference. Learned counsel sought an adjournment on this ground.

[8] The aforestated sequence of events manifests in no uncertain terms that Timothy L. Changsan is casually toying with the due procedure of law

and merrily taking undue advantage thereof. Having suffered conviction for serious offences under the POCSO Act, Timothy L. Changsan did not

even choose to appear either on the date of pronouncement of the judgments or on the date of hearing for imposition of the sentences. He thereafter

remained a fugitive and is still evading the reach of the law successfully.

[9] The question of Timothy L. Changsan proving his bonafides by appearing through video conference does not arise at this stage as he is bound to

surrender pursuant to his conviction and sentence in the two cases, before he can appeal against the same and seek suspension of the sentences under

Section 389 Cr.P.C. It is not open to him to evade arrest by unlawful means and seek relief from this Court by way of bail applications filed in these

long-belated appeals.

[10] Viewed from any angle, the conduct of Timothy L. Changsan clearly manifests his complete lack of regard and respect for the law. The present

appeals and the applications filed therein are demonstrable abuse of process in the light of such conduct.

[11] We therefore see no reason to entertain these miscellaneous applications or the appeals. The same are accordingly dismissed on this short

ground.