Page 1 of 21

Serial No.04

Regular List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

Crl.A.No.9/2021

Date of Order: 30.05.2022

Alan Sohshang Vs. State of Meghalaya & anr

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Chief Justice

Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance:

For the Appellant

: Mr. KC Gautam, Adv with

Mr. W.M. Sangma, Adv

For the Respondents

: Mr. K Khan, PP with

Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl.PP

i) Whether approved for reporting in

Yes

Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication

in press:

Yes/No

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)

The appellant has been convicted for having committed an

offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10

years. In addition, the appellant has been fined Rs.10,000/- and required to

suffer a further month’s simple imprisonment upon failing to pay the fine.

2.

Several grounds have been raised by the appellant in assailing

the judgment of conviction of February 24, 2021 and the resultant

sentence. For a start, the appellant says that the foundational fact for

Page 2 of 21

invoking the provisions of the Act of 2012 was not established as the age

of the survivor was not ascertained. In such regard, the appellant says that

it was only a photocopy of the birth certificate that was relied upon though

the appellant had indicated that the appellant perceived the survivor to be

18 years old and the appellant also claimed that the survivor had informed

the appellant that she was 18 years old.

3.

The second ground urged is the delay in the lodging of the first

information report on or about April 11, 2016 when the incident

complained of was in early January of 2016. While on the aspect of delay,

the appellant seeks to bring out the perceived contradiction in the

statements rendered by the survivor and her mother as to when the survivor

informed the mother of the alleged incident of January, 2016. The

appellant reads the survivor’s testimony to imply that she had complained

of the incident to her mother a week after it occurred; while the mother

consistently claimed in her several statements that she came to know of the

incident only on April 8, 2016.

4.

Though there was a clear confession of the appellant recorded by

a Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973, the appellant claims to have retracted the statement. At any rate, the

appellant asserts that the manner in which such statement was extracted

was in complete derogation of the safeguards indicated in the relevant

Page 3 of 21

provision. In particular, the appellant claims that the appellant was given

no time to reflect on the statement.

5.

The appellant also points out that though the FIR was lodged by

the father and mother of the survivor jointly, the father of the survivor was

neither questioned by the investigating officer nor was the father cited as

a witness. The appellant submits that an adverse inference should be drawn

from such fact and it must be understood that the father did not support the

case of the prosecution.

6.

Finally, the appellant refers to a line in the testimony of the

survivor at the trial. Upon a question being put to the survivor in course of

her cross-examination, the survivor admitted that she had been tutored by

her mother before she came to court. The appellant suggests that the entire

edifice of the case falls in the light of the candid admission on the part of

the survivor that she had been tutored to make her statement in court.

7.

Several judgments have been cited on the legal aspects canvassed

by the appellant. A judgment reported at (2003) 3 SCC 21 (Bhagwan Singh

v. State of MP) has been placed for the observation therein that th