JELIUS SYIEM v. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA
Court: High Court of Meghalaya
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE W. DIENGDOH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Meghalaya judgment dated 2026-09-10. JELIUS SYIEM v. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Serial No. 01 Supplementary List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl. M. C. No. 207 of 2026 Date of Decision: 10. 09. 2026 Shri. Jelius Syiem, S/o (L) David Symbei, R/o Nongrynniang Village, South West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. ……… Applicant - Vs - The State of Meghalaya, Through the Public Prosecutor, The High Court of Meghalaya, At Shillong. ……… Opposite Party Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. E. Laloo, LAC. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Kharmih, Addl. PP. i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc. : ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. Heard Mr. E. Laloo, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant, who has submitted that the applicant has filed an appeal before this Court, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and related order of sentence dated 12. 02.
2024 passed by the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), South West Khasi Hills District, Mawkyrwat in Special POCSO Case No. 10 of 2021, whereby, he was convicted and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5(five) years with fine of ₹ 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment of 1(one) week for an offence punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. 2. However, while preferring an appeal, a delay of 879 days has occurred, due to circumstances which is beyond the control of the applicant, being a daily wage labourer and economically backward, moreover, his family members are also not financially sound and has no means to file an 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. H. Kharmih, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State respondent has no objection to the prayer for condonation of the delay. 4. On consideration of the submission made, this Court is inclined to allow this application on being satisfied that the grounds cited for the delay contain sufficient cause. Accordingly, the delay of 879 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. Judge
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.