Taitmi Sayoo v. The State of Meghalaya and Anr

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG

Crl.M.C. No. 130 of 2025 In Crl.A. No. 79 of 2025 Date of order: 12.11.2025

Taitmi Sayoo ….Applicant -versus -

¶1The State of Meghalaya through the Superintendent of Police, West Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya.

¶2Officer-in-charge, Women Police Station, Jowai, West Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya. …Respondents Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Soumen Sen, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge

Appearance: For the Applicant : Mr K. Ch. Gautam, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mr K. Khan, PP with

Mr R. Gurung, Addl PP

Mr A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl Sr GA

i) Whether approved for

reporting in Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication

in press:

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)

This is an application for suspension of sentence.

¶2The learned counsel for the appellant has raised a very pertinent jurisdictional issue apart from other issues with regard to the judgment passed by the learned trial court under the Protection of Children from Serial No. 01 Daily List

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act]. The issue raised by the learned counsel is that the trial court has not arrived at a definite finding as to the age of the victim and the discussions in paragraph 30 of the said judgment are general. The conclusion that the victim was a minor at the time when the offence was committed is based on surmise and conjecture. We find substance in the said argument as we are of the view that in paragraph 30 of the impugned judgment, there is a general discussion with regard to the issuance of birth certificate in rural areas and there is no definite conclusion that in the instant case, the victim at the time of the offence was minor and in spite of the best efforts could not produce the birth certificate although a specific plea was raised at the trial with regard to the age of the victim. The Baptisma Certificate dated

07.06.2009 was referred to but not exhibited by the prosecution in support of the age of the victim. However, the said certificate is not an admissible and conclusive piece of evidence as to the age of the victim. The prosecution did not furnish any reason for not producing any cogent and acceptable evidence. This goes to the very jurisdiction of the POCSO court to try the offence under the POCSO Act.

¶3The accused is in custody for almost eight years and has almost completed a substantial part of the sentence. On the earlier occasion, we called for a report from the Superintendent of Prison. The report filed by

the Superintendent, District Prison & Correctional Home, Jowai has certified that the conduct of the accused is satisfactory and his general behaviour has been good till the date of the report. He has been obedient, disciplined and cooperative with both prison staff and fellow inmates. Taking into consideration all such factors and having regard to the fact that he has already suffered imprisonment for a considerable length of time, we are inclined to allow this application for suspension of sentence, however, upon certain terms and conditions.

¶4The appellant shall be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹5,000/- with two sureties one of which shall be a registered surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai and shall not enter the jurisdiction where the victim is presently residing except for the purpose of appearing before the court as and when required or meeting the officer-in-charge in compliance of the direction passed today. The appellant shall appear before the Jurisdictional Magistrate once in a month and shall appear before this court as and when required.

¶5The appellant is directed to provide his address where he would stay during the pendency of the appeal and in the event any occasion arises for him to go outside the State of Meghalaya for the purpose of his avocation and/or employment and for any other emergency, he shall

intimate the said address and/or place of moving to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Jaintia Hills District as well as to the officer-in-charge of the police station where he would now reside. It is further directed that while on bail, the appellant shall not cause any threat or intimidation to the victim. He shall, however, meet the jurisdictional officer-in-charge once a month at least for a year. For any act of non-compliance, this order shall stand vacated without any further reference to this Court.

¶6The Registry is directed to prepare the required number of paper-books by 15.02.2026.

¶7The appeal shall be listed on 02.03.2026. Parties are directed to file their written notes of argument by that time.

¶8The application for suspension of sentence stands disposed of.

(H.S.Thangkhiew) (Soumen Sen)

Judge Chief Justice

Meghalaya

12.11.2025 "Sylvana PS"

Date: 2025.11.12 22:23:59 IST