SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 58

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
SKING RYMBAI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MEGHALAYA – Respondent
Crl.A. 26 / 2023



##PAGE1##

2026:MLHC:7

Serial No. 01

Supplementary List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

Date of Hearing: 02.12.2025

Crl.A.No.26 of 2023 Date of Decision: 28.01.2026

Shri. Sking Rymbai,

S/o Smti. Mil Rymbai,

R/o Village: Pasyih Dongmihsngi

P.S. Jowai

District: West Jaintia Hills Meghalaya.

Presently lodged in District Prison & Correctional Home,

West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai.

….. Appellant

-VERSUS-

State of Meghalaya

through Public Prosecutor

….. Respondent

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. M. Sharma, Legal Aid Counsel with

Ms. T. Buam, Adv

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.A. Sheikh, GA with

Ms. S. Shyam, GA

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment of conviction

dated 16.08.2022 and Order of Sentence of even date passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai, in Sessions Case No.63 of

2014 convicting the appellant u/s 376/506 (Part II) IPC and sentencing him

Page 1 of 16

##PAGE2##

2026:MLHC:7

to undergo 7 years imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of

payment, to undergo further 2 months simple imprisonment.

2. The fact of the case, as can be derived from the record, is that on

12.08.2012, PW-1 lodged a written FIR to the In-Charge, Phramer Traffic

Cell to the effect that on 09.07.2012 at about 8:00 PM, the appellant came to

her resident at Pasyih Dongmihsngi while she was not at home and raped her

daughter, the survivor (17 years of age), while she was asleep. After

committing the act, the appellant warned and threatened to kill the survivor

if she disclosed the matter to anyone. The said FIR was then forwarded to

Jowai Police Station and registered as Jowai P.S. C/No.108 (8) 12 u/s 376

IPC and endorsed to a Women Police Sub-Inspector (WPSI) for

investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, a prima facie case was

found established against the appellant and accordingly, a charge-sheet was

submitted vide C/S No.174/13 dated 20.12.2013 u/s 376/506 IPC. The

matter was thereafter taken up as Sessions Case No.63/2014 and the

appellant was made to face the trial.

3. On 22.07.2015, the charge was framed by the Trial Court against the

appellant u/s 376/506 IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined

7(seven) witnesses and exhibited 4(four) documents in support of its case.

After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the

appellant was recorded u/s 313 CrPC on 08.02.2022 in Pnar language

through an interpreter in presence of the defence counsel. No defence

witness was adduced on behalf of the appellant. The learned Trial Court

after hearing the parties, convicted the appellant by the impugned Judgment

dated 16.08.2022 u/s 376/506 IPC and by the Order of Sentence of even

date, sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for 7 years with fine

of Rs.15,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and in default of payment of fine, the

appellant was ordered to undergo further 2 months simple imprisonment. In

addition, the appellant was also sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years u/s

Page 2 of 16

##PAGE3##

2026:MLHC:7

506 (Para II) IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

4. Assailing the conviction and sentence, Mr. M. Sharma, learned LAC

appearing for the appellant submits that there was a delay of 33 days in filing

the FIR which remained unexplained during the trial making the entire

prosecution case doubtful. He submits that the evidence of PW-1(informant)

shows that she came to know about the incident after nine days of the

occurrence, but does not throw any light as to the entire period of delay in

lodging the FIR. He submits that there is also glaring discrepancy and

contradiction in the statement of the survivor recorded u/s 164 CrPC and her

deposition before the Trial Court. He submits that the survivor’s statement

u/s 164 CrPC reveals that her siblings were sleeping in another room and did

not hear the appellant’s entry into the house whereas, in her

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top