15.04.2026 vs The State Of Meghalaya Represented By on 15 April, 2026

Meghalaya High Court

Date Of Decision: 15.04.2026 vs The State Of Meghalaya Represented By on 15 April, 2026

Author: W. Diengdoh

Bench: W. Diengdoh

                                                              2026:MLHC:334-DB



     Serial No. 06
     Regular List



                          HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                              AT SHILLONG

Crl.M.C. No. 55 of 2026
                                                    Date of Decision: 15.04.2026
Shri. Dominic Dajer,
S/o Shri. Rongna Riangshiang,
R/o Nongkhusba, Village-Maweit,
P.S- Nongstoin,
West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
                                             ......... Applicant/Accused Person
                                  -Vs-

1.       The State of Meghalaya represented by
         Public Prosecutor.

2.       Miss XXX
         D/o YYY
         Village-Maweit, P.S- Nongstoin.
                                             ............ Opposite Parties
Coram:
                 Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
                 Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge

Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s)   :      Ms. A. Surana, Legal Aid Counsel.

For the Respondent(s)             :      Mr. R. Gurung, GA.

i)       Whether approved for reporting in                    Yes/No
         Law journals etc.:

ii)      Whether approved for publication
         in press:                                            Yes/No


                                         1
                                                             2026:MLHC:334-DB



Per W. Diengdoh, (J):

                    JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. Heard Ms. A. Surana, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant,

who has submitted that the applicant has preferred an appeal before this Court

SPONSORED

against the impugned judgment and related order of sentence dated 10.08.2023

passed by the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Khasi Hills

District, Nongstoin in Special (POCSO) Case No. 3 of 2021 under Section 3(a)/4

of the POCSO Act.

2. However, while preferring an appeal, a delay of 906 days has

occurred, due to circumstances which is beyond the control of the

applicant/convict, belonging to a poor and uneducated background and the sole

bread earner of his family, is not aware of his legal rights to file appeal or to

engage a private counsel. As such, he could not prefer an appeal within the

prescribed period of limitation. Thereafter, legal aid was sought for, and

accordingly, this application was processed through Legal Aid Counsel. It is

therefore prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted.

3. Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA appearing for the State respondent has

no objection to the prayer for condonation of the delay.

4. On consideration of the submission made, we are persuaded to allow

this application on being satisfied that the grounds cited for the delay contain

2
2026:MLHC:334-DB

sufficient cause. Accordingly, the delay of 906 days in preferring the appeal is

hereby condoned.

5. Registry is directed to diarize the appeal and list it for admission after

1(one) week.

6. Misc. Case disposed of.

                    (B. Bhattacharjee)                                       (W. Diengdoh)
                          Judge                                                  Judge




Signature Not Verified                                        3
Digitally signed by
DARIKORDOR NARY
Date: 2026.04.15 18:39:52 IST