Meghalaya High Court
Crl.M.C./55/2026 of DOMINIC DAJER Vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR. on 15 April 2026
No. 06 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.M.C. No. 55 of 2026 Date of Decision: 15.04.2026 Shri. Dominic Dajer, S/o Shri. Rongna Riangshiang, R/o Nongkhusba, Village-Maweit, P.S- Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. .…….. Applicant/Accused Person -Vs- 1.
Serial No. 06
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.M.C. No. 55 of 2026
Date of Decision: 15.04.2026
Shri. Dominic Dajer,
S/o Shri. Rongna Riangshiang,
R/o Nongkhusba, Village-Maweit,
P.S- Nongstoin,
West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
.…….. Applicant/Accused Person
-Vs-
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.
1. The State of Meghalaya represented by
Public Prosecutor.
2. Miss XXX
D/o YYY
Village-Maweit, P.S- Nongstoin.
………… Opposite Parties
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Ms. A. Surana, Legal Aid Counsel.
For the Respondent(s)
: Mr. R. Gurung, GA.
i) Whether approved for reporting in
Yes/No
Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication
in press:
Yes/No
Per W. Diengdoh, (J):
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. Heard Ms. A. Surana, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant, who has submitted that the applicant has preferred an appeal before this Court against the impugned judgment and related order of sentence dated 10.08.2023 passed by the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin in Special (POCSO) Case No. 3 of 2021 under Section 3(a)/4 of the POCSO Act.
2. However, while preferring an appeal, a delay of 906 days has occurred, due to circumstances which is beyond the control of the applicant/convict, belonging to a poor and uneducated background and the sole bread earner of his family, is not aware of his legal rights to file appeal or to engage a private counsel. As such, he could not prefer an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Thereafter, legal aid was sought for, and accordingly, this application was processed through Legal Aid Counsel. It is therefore prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted.
3. Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA appearing for the State respondent has no objection to the prayer for condonation of the delay.
4. On consideration of the submission made, we are persuaded to allow this application on being satisfied that the grounds cited for the delay contain sufficient cause. Accordingly, the delay of 906 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.
5. Registry is directed to diarize the appeal and list it for admission after 1(one) week.
6. Misc. Case disposed of.
(B. Bhattacharjee) (W. Diengdoh)
Judge Judge
2026:MLHC:334-DB Digitally signed by DARIKORDOR NARY Date: 2026.04.15 18:39:52 IST Signature Not Verified