Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/15/2026 of SHRI KUKUTO SHIJOH Vs THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR on 22 September 2026
GAHC020001782026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/15/2026 SHRI KUKUTO SHIJOH S/O VEPOSA SHIJOH, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF DZULHAMI VILLAGE, CHOZUBA, PHEK, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR P.P.
GAHC020001782026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/15/2026
SHRI KUKUTO SHIJOH
S/O VEPOSA SHIJOH, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF DZULHAMI VILLAGE, CHOZUBA, PHEK, NAGALAND
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR
P.P. NAGALAND
2:SHRI VEKUVOYI (FIR INFORMANT)
S/O LATE VEHUYI
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF DZULHA VILLAGE
PHEK
NAGALAND
For the Applicant(s) : Mr. N.M. Konyak, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Mere, PP
Mr. Lelimthong P. Yimchunger, Advocate
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
HONBLE MRS JUSTICE HELEN DAWNGLIANI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 23.09.2026 (D.Baruah, J.)
This is an application filed seeking condonation of the delay of 830 days in preferring the accompanying Appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Phek in G.R. Case No. 54/2022 arising out of Phek Women P.S. Case No. 0004/2022 whereby the Appellant was convicted under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act and sentenced to imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.
2. We have duly perused the reasons assigned for the delay in preferring the accompanying Appeal.
3. We have also taken note of that the Appellant did not have the resources to prefer the Appeal and it is only on the basis of the Legal Aid Counsel, the Appeal could be filed.
4. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case for condoning the delay of 830 days in preferring the accompanying Appeal.
5. Accordingly, the delay of 830 days in preferring the accompanying Appeal is hereby condoned.
6. With the above observation, the I.A. stands disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant