Meghalaya High Court
Shri Shaniah Langstang vs 1.The State Of Meghalaya Through Its on 16 July, 2025
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2025:MLHC:615-DB
Serial No.01
Supple List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl. A. No.4 of 2024 Date of Decision:16.07.2025
____________________________________________________________
Shri Shaniah Langstang Vs.1.The State of Meghalaya through its
Son of Shri Wan Shyrmang Superintendent of Police, East
Resident of Jalaphet Bri Sumer, Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya.
Lum Lakba Village,
East Jaintia Hills District, 2.The Officer-in-Charge Khliehriat
Meghalaya. Women Police Station, Khliehriat.
3. Kem Shyrmang
W/o Staling Biam
R/o Jalaphet, East Jaintia Hills
District, P.O. and P.S Khliehriat,
Meghalaya.
..... Appellant. ......Respondents.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. K. C. Gautam, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Khan, PP with
Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl. PP.
Page 1 of 16
2025:MLHC:615-DB
(JUDGMENT AND ORDER)
Per. B. Bhattacharjee, Judge:
Judgment and Order dated 28-02-2022 and related order of
sentence of even date passed by the Special Judge (POCSO),
East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat in Special (POCSO) Case
No. 4 of 2020 is under challenged in this criminal appeal.
1. Brief fact of the case is that on 21-02-2020, PW-1, the
complainant, lodged an FIR before the Khliehriat Women Police
Station alleging that the appellant along with another Child in
Conflict with Law (CCL) raped her minor son, aged about six
years on 14-02-2020 at Lum Lakba, Jalaphet. The said FIR was
registered as Khliehriat Women P.S. Case No.4 (2) 2020 u/S 377
IPC r/w Section 5 (l)/6 POCSO Act and the matter was
investigated into. After completion of the investigation, a
charge-sheet u/S 377 IPC r/w Section 5 (l)/6 POCSO Act was
presented in the Trial Court and the appellant was put to trial.
2. The Trial Court framed charges on 18-02-2021 u/S 377 IPC
r/w Section 5 (l)/6 POCSO Act to which the appellant pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of the trial, the
prosecution examined 6 (six) witnesses in support of its case and
exhibited as many as 4 (four) documents and 1 (one) paper-mark.
After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the
appellant u/S 313 Cr.PC was recorded on 31-01-2022. The
Page 2 of 16
2025:MLHC:615-DB
appellant did not adduce any defence witness. The learned Trial
Court after hearing the prosecution and the Legal Aid Counsel
for the defence appointed by the State, by impugned judgment
and order dated 28-02-2022 convicted the appellant u/S 377 IPC
and Section 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and thereafter by
order dated 28-02-2022 sentenced the appellant to undergo 20
(twenty) years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of
Rs.3,00,000/- and in default of payment to undergo simple
imprisonment for five months.
3. Mr. K. C. Gautam, learned Counsel for the appellant, at the
outset, without referring to the merits of the appeal, expressed his
concern about the manner in which the appellant was defended in
the Trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that
because of the inability to appoint a counsel of his choice, the
appellant was provided with a State appointed Legal Aid Counsel
to defend him at the trial. He submits that the record of evidence
would show that there was hardly any effective cross-
examination of the prosecution witnesses on behalf of the
appellant. He submits that vital prosecution witnesses have been
let off without any challenge to their crucial testimony in the
cross-examination. He contends that the legal aid provided to the
appellant was only for namesake and not at all effective. He
submits that the presence of Legal Aid Counsel on behalf of the
Page 3 of 16
2025:MLHC:615-DB
appellant in the Trial Court was symbolic rather than a genuine
meaningful one. He contends that 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. The learned Counsel places
reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Sovaran Singh
Prajapati Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 351
and submits that it is the duty of the Court to see and ensure that
an accused put on a trial is effectively represented by a defence
Counsel and failure to do so would result in denial of fair trial to
the accused. He submits that in the present matter, the appellant
was provided with an ineffective legal aid which resulted in
denial of fair trial to the appellant and prays for quashing and
setting aside of the conviction and sentence of the appellant and
remand of the matter to the Trial Court for re-trial.
4. Per contra, Mr. K. Khan, learned PP appearing for the
State-respondent submits that the contention raised on behalf of
the appellant is not sufficient to direct retrial. He submits that
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 submits that in the present case there is no
Page 4 of 16
2025:MLHC:615-DB
illegality or irregularity in the conduct of the trial of the case. He
further submits that it is not the case of the appellant that there
was wrong admission or wrong rejection of evidences by the
Trial Court or that there was a refusal on the part of the Trial
Court to hear the defence before the judgment was pronounced.
In support of his contention, the learned PP places reliance on the
decision of the Apex Court in Nasib Singh Vs. State of Punjab &
Anr., (2022) 2 SCC 89 and submits that at para 33.6 of the said
judgment some instances are provided where retrial may be
ordered and the case of the appellant does not fall in any of the
instances mentioned therein. He, therefore, prays that prayer for
retrial of the case be rejected and the appeal be heard and decided
on merit.
5. Before we take a call as to whether the appellant was denied
a fair opportunity in the trial, we deem it appropriate to refer to
the authorities relied upon by the parties in their arguments. In
the case of Sovaran Singh Prajapati (supra), the Apex Court
while elaborating the Rights of the Accused at para 23.2 held: –
“23.2. In Chaluvegowda v. State, this Court discussed
extensively the right of representation by counsel. The
relevant paragraphs are reproduced with profit as under:
“18. The right to a fair trial is one to be enjoyed by the
guilty as well as the innocent, for an accused is presumed to
be innocent until proved to be otherwise in a fairly conducted
trial. This right would include that he be defended by a
competent counsel. The provision of an amicus curiae for an
accused, in case the accused is unable to engage an advocate
Page 5 of 16
2025:MLHC:615-DBto conduct his defence, is to ensure the goal of a fair trial
which is a guarantee provided in the Constitution. We may
recall the often quoted passage of Potter Stewart “Fairness is
what justice really is”.
19. The right to be represented by a lawyer must not be
an empty formality. It must not be a sham or an eyewash.
The appointment of an amicus curiae for the defence of an
accused person must be in true letter and spirit, with due
regard to the effective opportunity of hearing that is to be
afforded to every accused person before being condemned.
The due process of law incorporated in our constitutional
system demands that a person not only be given an
opportunity of being heard before being condemned, but also
that such opportunity be fair, just and reasonable.
20……….
21……….
22……….”
4 Further, at para 23.6 of the same judgment it was held: –
“23.6. A recent judgment in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India,
highlighted the legal aid defence counsel system, observing
that the objective of the scheme is to provide quality legal aid
to all those in need. Herein, reference was also made to
Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of U.P., while
discussing the quality of legal aid and in para 120, it was
held:
“120. It is by far now well-settled for a legal
proposition that it is the duty of the court to see and ensure
that an accused put on a criminal trial is effectively
represented by a defence counsel, and in the event on account
of indigence, poverty or illiteracy or any other disabling
factor, he is not able to engage a counsel of his choice, it
becomes that duty of the court to provide him appropriate
and meaningful legal aid at the State expense. What is meant
by the duty of the State to ensure a fair defence to an accused
is not the employment of a defence counsel for namesake. It
has to be the provision of a counsel who defends the accused
diligently to the best of his abilities. While the quality of the
defence or the caliber of the counsel would not militate
Page 6 of 16
2025:MLHC:615-DBagainst the guarantee to a fair trial sanctioned by Articles 21
and 22 respectively of the Constitution, a threshold level of
competence and due diligence in the discharge of his duties
as a defence counsel would certainly be the constitutional
guaranteed expectation. The presence of counsel on record
means effective, genuine and faithful presence and not a mere
farcical, sham or a virtual presence that is illusory, if not
fraudulent”.
5 Thus, it is clear from the above that the right of an accused
to defend himself in a criminal proceeding is an integral facet of
the right to life and personal liberty as enshrined under Article 21
of the Constitution of India. The guarantee of a fair trial
inherently includes the provision of legal assistance to an accused
who is unable to afford legal representation. The denial of
effective legal aid in such circumstances would amount to a
violation of the fundamental rights of the accused under Article
21. It must be emphasized that the mere formality of appointing
a legal aid counsel, without ensuring the efficacy and
competence of such representation, cannot be held to satisfy the
constitutional mandate. Legal aid must be real, substantial, and
meaningful. The counsel so appointed must possess adequate
knowledge and understanding of criminal law, the law of
evidence, procedural statutes, and other relevant legal provisions.
Hence, the constitutional entitlement to legal aid attains
significance only when the aid rendered is of acceptable quality
and competence. Any deficiency of the legal aid counsel to
Page 7 of 16
2025:MLHC:615-DB
conduct the trial effectively would, in effect, defeat the right of
the accused to a fair trial and constitute a breach of his
fundamental rights.
6. In the case of Nasib Singh (supra) relied on by the learned
PP, the Apex Court at para 33.6 observed as under: –
“33.6. The following are some instances, not intended to be
exhaustive, of when the Court could order a retrial on the ground of
miscarriage of justice:
(a) The trial court has proceeded with the trial in the
absence of jurisdiction;
(b) The trial has been vitiated by an illegality or
irregularity based on a misconception of the nature of the
proceedings; and
(c) The prosecutor has been disabled or prevented from
adducing evidence as regards the nature of the charge,
resulting in the trial being rendered a farce, sham or
charade.”
7. Perusal of the foregoing makes it evident that the
observations and instances cited are merely illustrative and not
exhaustive in nature. This clearly implies that the power of the
appellate court to remand a matter for retrial is not limited solely
to the circumstances expressly mentioned therein. Significantly,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nasib Singh (supra) has not laid
down that a denial of a fair trial amounting to a violation of the
mandate enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
and thereby resulting in the infringement of a fundamental right,
cannot be regarded as an exceptional circumstance justifying the
Page 8 of 16
2025:MLHC:615-DB
exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 386 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure for remanding the case for retrial.
8. Coming to the case at hand, record reveals that as many as
6 (six) prosecution witnesses were examined by the Trial Court.
For the sake of facility, the evidence of all the prosecution
witnesses, including their cross-examination, is reproduced
below: –
(i) PW-1 ON OATH
Examination-in-Chief by the Learned Special Public Prosecution by Miss. Shimnika Dkhar.
1. I received Summon to appear before this Court today.
2. I know of the instant case as the minor victim boy is my son.
3. One day in the month of February I saw my son’s (minor victim boy) lips was dry and i asked him if
he is not keeping well or not and told me that he is having headache and I took him to take medicine. On
22/02/2020 at around 10:00 PM one male person who was from CHILDLINE came to my village and
enquired about my residence and there were four or five people from the same village, one of them is
assistant rangbah shnong of Jalaphet, Bri Sumer, who took them to my house and on entering my house
the workers of CHILDLINE asked me if I am Smti Kem Shyrmang and if I have a child by the name
……. (minor victim boy), then I told them yes and then they again asked me if it is true that my son had
been raped by Shri Shaniah Langstang (accused person) and Shri. Nathan Dkhar (CCL) and told them I
do not know anything about the incident.4. The workers in the CHILDLINE asked me in order to
ascertain the truth the minor victim boy should be taken to hospital for medical examination I along with
the assistant rangbah shnong and the workers in CHILDLINE took my son (minor victim boy) to
Khliehriat CHC (Community Health Centre) on the next day and on reaching there, there was no Doctor
available on duty and we were asked to come back on the next day and on the next day I took my son to
Khliehriat CHC and on being examined it is found that my son has been raped.
5. I was present in the emergency room when the Doctor examined my minor victim boy and the doctor
who medically examined my victim son showed me there is a tear on the anus of my son.
6. On receiving the medical report I along with my minor victim boy went to khliehriat Police Station
and showed the Police the medical report and asked them in this kind of Incident what should I do? and
they advise me to lodge an FIR and accordingly I file the FIR on 21/02/2020. Exhibit P1 is the FIR form
and Exhibit P1 (1) is my signature.
7. My son was born on 12/10/2013 and I am in possession of the birth certificate of my minor son. Paper
Mark P1 is the photo copy of the birth certificate of my minor victim son (Paper Mark P 1 is compared
with the original and found to be true and correct).
8. My statement was recorded by the Police.
9. After few days of filing of the FIR, my daughter Miss. Lana Shyrmang told me that one day while she
was cleaning the compound she overheard that Nathan (CCL) told my victim son not to tell me about the
incident or else he will kill him and throw him in the jungle.
10. After the accused Shri. Shaniah Langstang (accused) and the CCL were arrested, then my minor son
told me about the incident, where he said that Nathan (CCL) took off his pants and inserted his male
organ inside his anus and cried as he was in pain and after that Shri Shaniah Langstang (accused) also
Page 9 of 16
2025:MLHC:615-DB
inserted his male organ inside his anus. After committing the offence both of them threatened not to
inform me or else they will kil him and throw him in the jungle.
11. The offence was committed on 14/02/2020 behind my house in a place called Lumlakba.
12. The reason for delay in filing the FIR was that I do not know about the incident as my son was
scared to inform me until the CHILDLINE workers informed me then I lodged the FIR.
13. The Police visited the place of occurrence on being led by my minor victim son and prepared the
rough sketch by the police Exhibit P 2 is the rough sketch map and Exhibit P 2 (1) is my signature.
14. I have given my consent before conducting the medical examination on my minor victim boy and I
have put my signature on the medical report of my son Exhibit P 3 is the medical report and Exhibit P 3
(1) is my signature.
15. I can identify the accused person and he is present in Court today via V/C.
XXX: by Learned State Defence Counsel Shri. S Pdang.
1.From the day of the incident that is 14/02/2020 till date my victim son is staying with me.
(ii) P.W-2 THE CHILD WITNESS IS BELOW 12 YEARS
Examination-in Chief by the Learned Special Public Prosecution by Miss, Shimnika Dkhar.
1. At the time of the incident I was playing at home with Master Mewan my cousin brother, Shri.
Shaniah Langstang (accused person) and Shri. Nathan Dkhar (Child in Conflict with Law) called me and
took me to a nearby jungle. In the forest the CCL took off my pants and then he inserted his penis in to
my anus. I was in pain and I was crying.
2. After the CCL was done, Shri. Shaniah Langstang (accused) inserted his penis into my anus and after
he was done both of them left me in the forest. I returned back home alone.
3. The next date the CCL threatened me and told me not to inform anyone of the incident or else he will
kill me and throw me into the forest.
4. I was taken to the hospital for medical examination.
5. The Police have taken my statement.
6. I have given my statement before the Magistrate where I have wrote my name on my statement.
Exhibit P 4 is my statement and Exhibit P 4 (1) is my name.
7. I can identify the accused person and he is present in Court via V/C
XXX: by Learned State Defence Counsel Shri. 5 Pdang.
1. It is a fact that I was sexually assaulted by the accused person and the CCL from my anus.
(iii) PW-3 ON OATH
Examination-in-Chief by the Learned Special Public Prosecution by Miss. Shimnika Dkhar.
1. I have received summon to depose in Court today.
2. The minor victim boy is my youngest brother.
3. I do not remember the date and month of the incident, but, it was in the year 2020, while I was
cleaning our compound in the house my brother (minor victim boy) went to buy snacks from the shop
which is very near from our house and at that time I saw Shri Nathan Dkhar (Child in Conflict with
Law) called my brother to the gate wall which is near our house.
4. I heard the CCL saying to my brother if he tells my mother he will kill him and throw him to the
jungle.
5. When the CCL saw me, he ran away from there. On hearing that I asked my minor victim brother why
did the CCL talked to him like that but, my minor victim brother did not say anything. On the same day
in the evening time I told my mother what I heard from Shri. Nathan Dkhar (CCL) threatening my
brother.
6. I know the CCL very well as he frequently visited our house and he is my close neighbour.
Page 10 of 16
2025:MLHC:615-DB
7. My statement was recorded by the Police.
8. I could identify the CCL if I see him.
XXX: by Learned State Defence Counsel Shri. S Pdang.
1. That I have heard the Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) threatening my victim brother but, I do
not know for what reason he threatened him.
(iv) PW-4 ON OATH
Examination-in-Chief by Learned Special Public Prosecution Miss. Shimnika Dkhar.
1. I have received summon to depose in Court today.
2. I joined my service in the year 2018 as Medical and Health Officer at Khliehriat CHC and till date I
am still serving as Medical and Health Officer at the said Hospital.
3 On 21/02/2020 at around 11:40AM a minor victim boy was brought by WPC Baiaishahlang Lapang at
Khliehriat Community Health Centre (CHC) with a history of sexual assault and the medical
examination of the minor victim boy was examined on the same day at around 2:30PM. The age of the
minor victim boy is 6 years 4 months.
4. Before conducting the medical examination I took the consent of the mother of the minor victim boy
Smti. Kem Shyrmang for medical examination and treatment as well as for Medico Legal Examination
and samples collection for clinical and forensic examination and the same was explained to her in Pnar
language.
5. Examination was done in the presence of Smti Karlin Pala (staff nurse) of Khliehriat Community
Health Centre (CHC). The date of the incident reported is 21/02/2020 and the time of the incident is
14/02/2020 and the location is Jalaphet, behind the survivor’s house near a bamboo shoot garden.
6. The estimated duration of time is 7 (seven) days and the episode is 1 (one) and the name of the
assailant was Nathan Dkhar (CCL) and another is Shri. Shaniah Langstang (accused) who was also
called as Shaniah Hep.
7. The assailant and the survivor are distant relative from paternal side.
8. History of sexual violence: the incident occurred on 14/02/2020 at Jalaphet village behind the
survivor’s house at their bamboo shoot garden. A 6 (six) years old boy was brought by women police
and his mother for medical examination with a history of sexual assault on 14/02/2020. According to the
mother of the minor victim boy on 17/02/2020 she heard few children (girls) talking about being scared
to walk around as something bad will happen to them but, when she asked the children they ran away.
She then asked around and heard about the rumour about what happened to her son. She then asked her
son and he told her that on 14/02/2020 two boys Shri. Nathan Dkhar (Child in Conflict with Law) and
Shri. Shaniah Langstang (accused) pulled his pant down and pushed their private parts into his anus.
First the CCL did then Shri. Shaniah Langstang (accused) behind their house (bamboo shoot garden) On
asking the survivor if there is pain after the incident, there is a pain in the anus. He did not bleed after the
incident and had no painful defecation. On 20/02/2020 two people (male) came to her house to ask about
her son and counselled her about what she could do then on 21/02/2020 she went to the Police Station
and later to Khlilehriat CHC for medical examination.
9. Post incident the survivor had changed clothes, changed undergarments, clean/washed clothes, clean
undergarments, bathed, douched, passed urine and passed stool.
10. The time since the incident is 7 (seven) days and there is no history of anal oral bleeding or discharge
prior to the incident.
11. No history of anal oral bleeding or discharge since the incident.
12. General Physical examination: (i) pulse-78 per minute, (ii) temperature-afebrile, (iii) pupils-bilateral
equally reacting to light, respiratory rate: 24 per minute.
13. There is no external injuries seen on the body of the minor victim boy.
14. There is no external injury in his penis or scrotum or testes and there is two small tear present around
2 cm in the anus.
Page 11 of 16
2025:MLHC:615-DB
15. On local examination of the genital parts there was no injury seen on penis, scrotum, testes. However
there are two small tear No.2 cm.
16. On systemic examination: (i) central nervous system-conscious and oriented, (ii) cardio vascular
system-S1,S2 present, (iii) Respiratory system – bilateral chest clear and (iv) abdomen- soft and bowel
was sound.
17. Samples collection for Hospital Laboratory: blood samples was collected and the report had been
attached.
18. No samples were collected for forensic examination since it was around 7 days and the survivor
wash and took bath multiple times.
19. Final Opinion: the above findings (history and physical) is consistent with sexual assault with anal
penetration.
20. I have prepared the medical report (Exhibit P 3) and my signature are reflected at Exhibit P 3 (2) and
Exhibit P 3 (3).
XXX: by Learned State Defence Counsel Shri. S Pdang.
1. The brief story of the incident was narrated to me by both the victim and his mother.
2. I have not mentioned on the medical report the time of completion of the examination.
3. In this instant case I medically examined the minor victim boy but the injuries are still present even it
is after seven days.
4. It depends on case to case the size of the injuries.
5. I have mention the age of the accused as 17 (seventeen) years on being told by the mother of the
survivor but, I did not medically examined the accused.
(v) PW-5 ON OATH
Examined-in-Chief by Special Prosecutor Smti. S Dkhar.
1. I have received summon to depose in Court today. I know of the instant case as I am a member of
Childline Team Member, Khliehriat and as we received information from neighbours of victim boy of 6
(six) years old about the incident.
2. Information received from reliable source that Nathan Dkhar and Shaniah Langstang who are the
neighbours of victim committed rape on the victim on date I do not recall but it was in the month of
February 2020.
3. On the same date myself and the driver proceeded to the Place of occurrence at Lumlakba, Jalaphet
village, and went to the house of the headman but was not found at his house at his house and his family
member contacted him over phone who in turn contacted the village members. The two village members
came to the headman’s house and together with us proceeded to the house of the victim.
4. At victim’s house on learning about the incident from us the mother of the victim wanted to report the
matter to the Police. Immediately the mother and the victim boy accompanied by myself and one village
member went to Khliehriat Women Police Station and the mother Smti. Kem Shyrmang lodged the FIR.
After the lodging of the FIR I left for home.
5. Thereafter three to four days I was called over phone by the Police to accompany them for the arrest
of the accused persons as because the incident was brought to light by myself otherwise I do not know
the accused persons at that point of time but I was informed about their names and the act by the reliable
sources whose name I cannot divulge as per rules of Childline.
6. I went with the Police to Lumlakba, Jalaphet village and on enquiring from the local people by the
Police we found the house of accused Nathan Dkhar and found him in the house and Police arrested him
and thereafter we proceeded to the house of accused Shaniah Langstang and also found him in the house
and police arrested him also and both of the arrested persons were brought to Khliehriat Women Police
Station. Thereafter I left for home after the work as a Childline member is done.
7. The arrested Nathan Dkhar is 14 (fourteen) years of age as learnt during his arrest I can identify both
the arrestee as I still remember their faces and right now I could see only accused Shaniah Langstang
appearing in the V/C screen from laptop.
8. That much I have to say.
Page 12 of 16
2025:MLHC:615-DB
XXX: by State Defence Counsel Shri. D Pachiang.
1. I could not remember since how many days since incident when we received information from the
reliable sources.
2. On the date of lodging the FIR the Police have enquired from me about the source of information and
I had narrated to them however, the Police also are not supposed to disclose the sources of information.
3. The Police did not record my statement.
(vi) PW-6, ON OATH
Examined-in-Chief by Special Prosecutor Smti. S Dkhar.
1. I have received WT message to appear via V/C for this evidence today.
2. I joined my service on 17th September, 2012 and in the year 2017 I was posted at Women PS
Khliehriat as Sub Inspector and I am the I/O in this case and the case was endorsed to me by O/C Insp. O
Tyngkan. On receiving the endorsement I sent the victim for medical examination to Khliehriat CHC and
after medical examination was done the medical report was also received.
3. I have examined the complainant Smti. Kem Shyrmang U/S 161 CrPC on examining her she has also
produced the birth certificate of the minor victim boy of 6 years old.
4. During the course of investigation I have arrested the accused person Shri. Shaniah Langstang son of
Wom Shyrmang resident of Jalaphet Bri Sumer.
5. After his arrest he was thoroughly interrogated to which he admitted of committing the offence as
alleged against him but I have not sent for his statement U/S 164 CrPC.
6. I have also apprehended the CCL Nathan Dkhar son of Shri. Proswell Shyrmang of Jalaphet Bri
Sumer of 14 years of age.
7. I have examined the CCL and taken his statement but he denied his involvement.
8. The accused person has been produced before the Court of District & Sessions Judge and was
remanded to 14 days judicial custody. The CCL has also been produced before the JJB.
9. Further I have visited the PO on being led by the victim at Lumlakba Jalaphet Bri Sumer. The PO is in
jungle with cultivating land nearby and it is approximately 1km from the house of the victim.
10.I have prepared the Rough sketch map of the PO in the presence of Smti Kem Shyrmang the mother
of the victim who had also signed on the rough sketch map and the same is at Exhibit P 2 and Exhibit P
2(2) is my signature thereon I have also taken photographs of the PO and its printout copy from
computer has been submitted to Court wherein I have indicated ‘A’ as entry to forest ‘B’ as the
playground and ‘C’ as the Place of occurrence. Paper Mark 1 is the photo printout copy.
11. I have also examined the victim and his statement has been recorded U/S 161 CrPC and I submitted a
prayer for recording the statement of the victim U/S 164 CrPC and accordingly his statement was
recorded which is at Exhibit P4.
12.I have also examined one witness Ms. Lana Shyrmang sister of the minor victim boy and her
statement has been recorded U/S 161 CrPC. Who stated she heard her victim brother talking with CCL
and overheard the CCL threatening the minor boy.
13.As per the statement U/S 164 of the victim, his medical report I have submitted charge sheet against
the accused person Shri. Shaniah Langstang to POCSO Court U/S 377 IPC R/W Sec 5(m)/6 POCSO Act
vide CS No.7/2020 dated: 12/03/2020 and charge sheet against CCL Nathan Dkhar to JJB U/5 377
IPC/506 IPC R/W Sec 5(I)/6 POCSO Act and splitted the charge sheet accordingly.
14.I can identify the accused and he is the one with black shirt also wearing gamcha (assamese muffler)
(she identified Shaniah Langstang who is standing amongst three prison inmates appearing via V/C).
XXX: by State Defence Counsel Shri. D Pachiang.
1. Yes, I am aware of the fact the FIR was lodged after delay of 7 days from the date of incident.
2. As per the FIR there is no mention regarding delay of filing the FIR.
3. I do not agree that the accused person did not commit aggravated sexual penetration on the victim.
Page 13 of 16
2025:MLHC:615-DB
9. It is apparent from the above 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 endeavor 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.
10. In Ashok V. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 2 SCC 381,
the Apex Court while dealing with the issue of appointment of
counsel through legal aid process, at paras 38.11 and 38.12 held:-
“38.11. The right of the accused to defend himself in
a criminal trial is guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. He is entitled to a fair trial. But
if effective legal aid is not made available to an
accused who is unable to engage an advocate, it willPage 14 of 16
2025:MLHC:615-DBamount to infringement of his fundamental rights
guaranteed by Article 21;
38.12. If legal aid is provided only for the sake of
providing it, it will serve no purpose. Legal aid must
be effective. Advocates appointed to espouse the
cause of the accused must have good knowledge of
criminal laws, law of evidence and procedural laws
apart from other important statutes. As there is a
constitutional right to legal aid, that right will be
effective only if the legal aid provided is of a good
quality. If the legal aid advocate provided to an
accused is not competent enough to conduct the trial
efficiently, the rights of the accused will be violated.”
The above proposition of law has been reiterated by the
Apex Court in the case of Sovaran Singh Prajapati (supra).
11. Considering the entire factual and legal position, we are
constrained to hold that the role played by the legal aid defence
counsel appointed on behalf of the appellant in the Trial Court
was not at all effective or adequate. It is evident that the lack of
effective legal representation has not only violated the
fundamental rights of the appellant under Article 21 of the
Constitution but also has seriously prejudiced his defence in the
case. A retrial seems to be the only way to rectify the situation.
12. For what has been discussed above, the impugned
Judgment and Order dated 28-02-2022 and related order of
sentence of even date passed by the Special Judge (POCSO),
East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat in Special (POCSO) Case
Page 15 of 16
2025:MLHC:615-DB
No. 4 of 2020 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the
Trial Court. The Trial Court shall now proceed afresh from the
stage of framing of charge. The parties shall appear before the
Trial Court on 05-08-2025 and cooperate during the trial to avoid
further delay in the matter.
13. As the appellant is represented before this Court by his own
appointed Counsel, we expect that he would be able to engage a
counsel of his choice in the trial. In the event, the appellant fails
to engage a counsel, the Trial Court shall ensure that the
appellant is provided with an effective an adequate legal
representation in the matter.
14. With the above, this criminal appeal stands disposed of.
15. The Trial Court Records be sent back forthwith.
(B. Bhattacharjee) (W.Diengdoh)
JUDGE JUDGE
Meghalaya
16.07.2025
"Biswarup PS"
Page 16 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by BISWARUP
BHATTACHARJEE
Date: 2025.07.16 18:02:24 IST