SHILLONG: The Division Bench of the High Court of Meghalaya in its order on Thursday set aside the five-year conviction order of Nongstoin fast track court awarded to a rape accused cook in the Police Department.
Earlier in 2014, the Nongstoin court had awarded Johny Nongtynger, the cook with the police battalion at Shallang in West Khasi Hills, five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine for his involvement in the ‘rape and attempted murder’ of a woman at Shallang on December 7, 2007.
The incident of rape was reported by the victim who had co-habited with the accused.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir and Judge SR Sen, however, observed that after thorough scanning of the evidences on record and the material exhibits, they did not find sufficient materials to agree with the order of the Nongstoin fast track court on July 25, 2014.
“It is also a concern that if such type of evidence is produced and examined in such a manner, it will only encourage the guilty people who are bound to go scot-free, for which we express our anguish and displeasure upon the prosecution as well as to the court,” the division bench said.
After setting the convict free, the court asked the Director General of Police to take up the matter with the government so that the directorate of prosecution will be established as early as possible and accountability can be fixed.
As per the investigation officer, the victim had eloped with the convict for over five months.
During the examination of the victim at Ganesh Das Hospital, no rape was established as the injury was of old nature.
The court said from cross-examination, it was also clear that the victim had cohabited with the convict prior to the incident at battalion quarters at Shallang and also admitted that she informed the conception of the child from the convict firstly to her family members and then to the convict at Shallang market.
According to the court, a witness substantiated that she knew the convict very well and they had cohabited prior to the incident.
“Therefore, we could not understand where the question of rape comes and the circumstances which arise here create only a bunch of doubts,” the court said.
