By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, July 16: The High Court of Meghalaya has set aside an impugned order passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), East Jaintia Hills, sentencing one Shaniah Langstang (appellant), a resident of Jalaphet Bri Sumer, Lum Lakba village, East Jaintia Hills, to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 3 lakh.
The trial court’s order dated February 28, 2022, was challenged in a criminal appeal.
On February 21, 2020, an FIR was lodged with the Khliehriat Women Police Station alleging that the appellant along with another Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) raped the complainant’s minor son, aged about six years that time, on February 14, 2020, at Lum Lakba, Jalaphet.
After the case was charge-sheeted, the appellant was put to trial.
The trial court framed charges on February 18, 2021, U/S 377 IPC r/w Section 5 (l)/6 POCSO Act to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Subsequently, the prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case and exhibited as many as four documents and a paper-mark. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant U/S 313 CrPC was recorded on January 31, 2022.
The appellant, was, by impugned judgment and order dated February 28, 2022, was convicted by the trial court U/S 377 IPC and Section 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and sentenced to undergo 20 years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs 3 lakh, and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for five months.
At present, the appellant contends that the legal aid provided to the appellant was only for namesake and not at all effective.
Learned Counsel for the appellant, KC Gautam, asserted that there was hardly any effective cross examination of the prosecution witnesses on behalf of the appellant, and that vital prosecution witnesses have been let off without any challenge to their crucial testimony in the cross-examination.
He contended that the legal aid provided to the appellant was only for namesake and not at all effective. If legal aid is provided only for the sake of providing, the right of the accused to defend himself in a criminal trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India gets defeated, he argued.
However, the learned public prosecutor, K Khan, appearing for the state respondent, submitted that the contention raised on behalf of the appellant is not sufficient to direct retrial. Retrial of a criminal case can be ordered only in exceptional cases where the trial was undertaken by the Trial Court having no jurisdiction or trial was vitiated by serious illegality or irregularity on account of the misconception of nature of proceeding, he stated. He claimed that in the present case there is no illegality or irregularity in the conduct of the trial of the case.
After meticulously studying the circumstances, the bench comprising Justice W Diengdoh and Justice B Bhattacharjee, observed that there was hardly any effort by the defence counsel to test the credibility and reliability of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses in their cross examination.
“The cross-examination of the vital witnesses like PW-1(complainant), PW-2(survivor) and PW-3 (sister of the survivor) are very short consisting of only one line and do not appear to be adequate and effective. The cross-examination of PW-4 (doctor), PW-5 (Childline Team Member) and PW-6 (Investigating Officer) also appears to be very brief comprising of three to five lines. There is no indication that any effort was made in the cross-examination to look for inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence. No endeavour was made to challenge the truthfulness and memory of the prosecution witnesses in order to extract clear explanation of the facts. In the above circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the legal aid provided to the appellant during the course of the trial was not effective at all,” the court observed.
A retrial seems to be the only way to rectify the situation, the court ruled.
The matter was remanded back to the Trial Court, which was directed to proceed afresh from the stage of framing of charge. The parties will have to appear before the Trial Court on August 5, 2025, and cooperate during the trial to avoid further delay in the matter.