Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

1. The instant appeal under Rule 22 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, 1937 read with Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Cr.P.C] is directed against the judgment and orders dated 15.09.2010, as passed in GR Case No.128 (A) of 1997 whereby, the learned Additional District Magistrate, Shillong has convicted the accused-appellant for offences under Sections 376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC]; and has sentenced him to 5 years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 376 IPC and to one month's imprisonment for the offence under Section 448 IPC.

2. It may be summarised at the outset that the alleged incident leading to the trial and conviction of the appellant dates back to 17.01.1994 and charge sheet in this case was filed on 12.07.1996. The trial and other proceedings in this case got protracted in a rather perplexing manner where even after pronouncing the judgment of conviction on 18.07.2000, the learned Trial Court re-opened the matter for defence evidence while 'suspending' its judgment and indeed recorded the statements of three defence witnesses. Thereafter and before any other decision, the case stood transferred to the Fast Track Court who made a reference to the then jurisdictional High Court while raising doubts on the validity and legality of the procedure so adopted in this matter, of 'suspending' the pronounced judgment and recording defence evidence after the judgment. The questioned procedure was disapproved by the then jurisdictional High Court on 06.03.2006 while answering the reference; and the Fast Track Court was directed to decide the matter while discarding such evidence led by the defence. However, the fresh decision dated 31.03.2006 was also disapproved by the High Court in the order dated 02.06.2008 as passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1 (SH) of 2006; and the matter was remanded for further proceedings from the stage of Section 233 Cr.P.C. After remand, the Trial Court recorded the statements of four witnesses produced in defence and thereafter, convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment and orders dated 15.09.2010. Aggrieved, the accused-appellant preferred this appeal but then, before the appeal was taken up for hearing, served out the sentence awarded; and, on 06.06.2013, this fact, that the appellant had served out the sentence, was itself taken as sufficient by a learned Single Judge of this Court to dispose of the appeal. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 09.01.2015, as passed in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2015 [SLP (Crl) No. 6667 of 2014], did not approve of the order so passed by this Court while observing that the appeal before the High Court was not rendered infructuous merely because the appellant had undergone the sentence; and hence, remanded the appeal for afresh consideration on merits.

3. Thus, this appeal, pertaining to the alleged incident of the year 1994 has now been heard on merits after the matter has gone through several rounds of reference, appeal and remand. The most unfortunate aspect of the matter is that even in the impugned judgment and orders dated 15.09.2010, the learned Trial Court has not taken care to deal with the entire evidence on record and has convicted the appellant only after rejecting the defence evidence that was adduced after remand. Ordinarily, in such circumstances, this Court would have considered the option of setting aside the impugned judgment and requiring the decision afresh by the Trial Court but, such a course would only lengthen the life of this fairly old matter that has already gone through several rounds of remand and would not serve the cause of justice. Therefore, in the given set of circumstances, it is considered appropriate that the entire matter be examined on merits by this Court. Hence, a somewhat detailed reference to the relevant evidence and proceedings in this case is