Meghalaya High Court
Shri Joshua Nonghshli vs . 1. The State Of Meghalaya, on 28 April, 2025
2025:MLHC:329
Serial No.07
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl. M.C. No.20 of 2025 in
Crl. Petn. No. 10 of 2025 Date of Order: 28.04.2025
____________________________________________________________
Shri Joshua Nonghshli Vs. 1. The State of Meghalaya,
S/o Shri L. Khongtim Represented thorugh Secretary and
R/o Saiden Nongpoh, Ri-Bhoi Commissioner, Home Police
District, Meghalaya. Department, Government of
Meghalaya.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya.
.....Applicant. .....Respondents.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Applicant(s) : Ms. S. Nongsiej, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Kharmih, Addl. PP
Mrs. S. Bhattacharjee, GA.
ORAL:-
Heard Ms. S. Nongsiej, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant
and also Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State-
respondent.
By this application, the applicant has prayed for stay of the
proceeding in Special POCSO Case No. 37 of 2024 under Section 3Page 1 of 4
2025:MLHC:329
(a)/4/5/6 POCSO Act, 2012 pending before the Special Judge (POCSO),
Nongpoh Ri Bhoi arising out of FIR No. 50 (8) 2023.
Ms. S. Nongsiej, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant
submits that the allegation set out in the charge-sheet does not constitute
any offence against the applicant. She submits that except for saying that
there is reliable source of information against the applicant, there is nothing
incriminating against the applicant in the charge-sheet. She contends that
the finding in the FSL report dated 06-01-2025 that the applicant is not the
biological father of the male boy delivered by the survivor clearly
exonerates the applicant from the allegation made in the case. The learned
Counsel further submits that the entire prosecution case is based on the
Test Identification Parade (TIP), which is not at all a substantive piece of
evidence. It is the further contention of the learned Counsel that the
survivor and the applicant reside in the same area and, hence, the TIP
cannot be an acceptable evidence in the eye of law. She submits that the
trail against the applicant would not serve any meaningful purpose and
prays for stay of the same till the disposal of the main criminal petition.
Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl. PP. for the State-respondent, on the
other hand, strongly objects to the contentions raised on behalf of the
applicant and submits that the applicant is named as a prime accused in the
charge-sheet. He further submits that there is nothing on record to show
that the applicant and the survivor are known to each other and in that view
of the matter, no illegality can be attached to the TIP at this stage. He
submits that the question of existence of direct evidence against the
applicant can only be determined after the testimony of the witnesses are
recorded by the Trial Court in the matter. The learned Addl. PP further
submits that the survivor in her statement made during the investigation has
Page 2 of 4
2025:MLHC:329
clearly stated that there were two persons involved in the matter. He
contends that the FSL report dated 06-01-2025 does not in any way come
to the rescue of the applicant at this stage as the question of paternity is not
the only determinative factor on which the prosecution case rests in the
matter. He submits that no case has been made out for stay of the trial
against the applicant.
Upon hearing the learned Counsels appearing for the parties and on
perusal of materials on record, it is found that the survivor in her statement
under Section 164 Cr.PC stated that two persons committed sexual offence
against her. It also appears that the applicant herein is identified by the
survivor in the Test Identification Parade conducted during the course of
investigation. Further, the order dated 28-02-2025 of the Trial Court
projects that the applicant was identified by the survivor after she saw his
picture in the mobile phone of the complainant and informed the
complainant that the applicant was the perpetrator and thereafter the
applicant was arrested on 26-08-2024. That apart, since there is more than
one accused in the matter, the FSL report is also of not much help to the
applicant, as it does not prove the innocence of the applicant at this stage
insofar as the allegation of commission of sexual offence is concerned.
The learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the
decision dated 08-07-2024 of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1473
of 2024, P. Sasikumar Vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police to
contend that the TIP is not substantive evidence. While there is no quarrel
with the said proposition, it cannot be said at this stage that the prosecution
case in the matter is solely dependent on the TIP and there is no other
direct evidence.
Page 3 of 4
2025:MLHC:329
In view of the above, the prayer for stay of the proceeding in
Crl.M.C. No. 20/2025 stands rejected.
Judge
Meghalaya
28.04.2025
“Biswarup PS”
Page 4 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by BISWARUP
BHATTACHARJEE
Date: 2025.04.29 08:04:42 IST