Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Meghalaya · body

2026 DAILYLAW 420 (MEG)

GAMCHAT N. SANGMA v. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

Crl.M.C./119/2026 · 2026-07-06

W Diengdoh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 Serial No. 11 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.M.C. No. 119 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 Shri. Gamchat N. Sangma S/o N. Ch. Marak Age. 33 years R/o. Cherangre, West Garo Hills, District, Meghalaya 794002 …Appellant -Versus- 1. The State of Meghalaya represented by Secretary, Department of Home & Police Affairs, Meghalaya, Shillong. 2. The Superintendent of Police, West Garo Hills District, Tura Meghalaya. 3. Investigation Officer, Tura Women P.S, West Garo Hills, District, Meghalaya. 4. Officer-in-Charge, Tura Women P.S, West Garo Hills District Meghalaya. …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. P.T. Sangma, Adv. with Ms. J.T. Sangma, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Kharmih, Addl. P.P i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No 2026:MLHC:663 2 ORDER (ORAL) 1. Heard Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the applicant who has submitted that the applicant while preferring the appeal against the judgment dated 20.04.2026 and order of sentence dated 21.04.2026 passed in Special (POCSO) Case No. 10 of 2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Tura, West Garo Hills a delay of 9(nine) days has occurred for which this application has been filed for condonation of the same. 2. Again, the learned counsel has submitted that after the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment, he was unable to communicate his family members of the same and was unable to prefer the appeal within the stipulated period. Hence the delay. 3. It is therefore prayed that the delay may be condoned to allow the applicant to prefer the related appeal. 4. Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl. P.P appears for the State respondent and has no objection to the prayer made. 5. On consideration of the prayer made, this Court is inclined to allow this application on being satisfied that the ground cited contain sufficient cause. 6. Accordingly, the delay of 9(nine) days in preferring the related appeal is hereby condoned. 2026:MLHC:663 3 7. Registry to diarize the appeal and list the same for admission after 1(one) week. 8. Misc. Case disposed of. Judge Meghalaya 06.07.2026 “Tiprilynti–PS” 2026:MLHC:663 Digitally signed by TIPRILYNTI KHARKONGOR Date: 2026.07.06 19:24:00 IST