Meghalaya High Court Suspends Judgement In POCSO Case, Directs Trial Court To First Determine Juvenility Of Accused

The Meghalaya High Court recently suspended a judgment and sentence order passed by a Trial Court and directed it first to decide the issue of juvenility of the accused-appellant.

The division bench comprising Justice W. Diengdoh and Justice B. Bhattacharjee observed:

“Looking at the prayer of the appellant and the annexed certificates (supra), we are prima facie satisfied that the issue of juvenility as far as the appellant is concerned has substance. The case of Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (supra) at para 11 mandates that when a claim is raised that an accused was a juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence, the court is required to make an enquiry, take evidence and to determine the age of the person.”

It was the submission of the Legal Aid Counsel (LAC) that from the FIR dated November 15, 2017, it can be noticed that the complainant had made an allegation that a minor girl who is her ward had complaint of suffering from the genital area. On being taken to the Civil Hospital Shillong, the medical examination confirmed that the same was due to sexual intercourse. It was then that the said minor girl stated that she had sexual intercourse with eight persons, including the appellant herein about three years ago.

By judgment dated August 18, 2023 passed by the Trial Court, the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 3(a)/4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/-. The appellant preferred an appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court.

The LAC submitted that arrest memo would show that at the time of his arrest, the appellant was 19 years of age, the allegation of sexual assault relates to an alleged incident which took place three years ago. Therefore, it was argued that the appellant was about 16 years or so when the incident happened.

The LAC submitted that two documents before the Court, i.e., the Birth Certificate issued by the Medical & Health Officer-Cum-Registrar Birth and Death, I/c Markasa PHC wherein the date of birth of the appellant was noted as January 22, 1998. Another certificate being the Baptismal Certificate issued by the Khasi Jaintia Presbyterian Assembly also gave the date of birth of the appellant as January 22, 1998.

It was submitted by the LAC that in terms of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 as well as on the strength of a catena of judgments passed by the Supreme Court in this regard it is imperative that the age of the appellant may first be determined before proceeding any further with the appeal.

The Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that he appellant has approached the Court with the two certificates, thereby proving that the same is an afterthought, such certificates being procured only after the case before the Trial Court has been concluded and the judgment and order of conviction passed, therefore, such documents has to be looked into with suspicion and may not be accepted offhandedly.

The Court noted that there is no bar for raising the plea of juvenility even at the appellate stage.

“…..to record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child, stating the age as nearly as maybe. Rule 12(3) of the said JJ Rules, 2007 provides for such procedure,” the Court said.

It was further observed by the Court that it has no doubt or suspicion as far as the conduct of the appellant is concerned and would rather leave it to the court of competent jurisdiction to determine the age of the appellant.

“Under such circumstances, this petition is allowed. We hereby direct that the issue of juvenility of the appellant be first decided by the concerned Trial Court and based on the result thereof the Trial Court is at liberty to decide the case of the parties herein,” the Court directed.

The Court stated that if the issue of juvenility is decided in the negative, the impugned judgment and sentence may not be disturbed and the appellant is at liberty to approach the High Court for consideration of the same and the period of delay would stand condoned.

Case Title: Shri Sheldar Syiemlieh v. State of Meghalaya

Case No.: Crl.M.C. No 93 of 2024 in Crl.A. No. 43 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order