Meghalaya High Court
Shri. Wulningstar Wanniang vs State Of Meghalaya And Others on 5 December, 2013
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
CRL. REVN.P. No.65/2013
Shri. Wulningstar Wanniang, S/o Shri. Thiandro Paliar,
Resident of Tynrong Mawiawsne, Nongstoin Syiemship,
P.S. Nongstoin Police Station, West Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya. :::::::: Petitioner/Accused
- Versus -
State of Meghalaya, represented by the Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. of Meghalaya. :::::::: Respondents
Mr. S Wahlang, Advocate, K Syiemlieh, Advocate, C Rani, Advocate, W Shabong, Advocate, B Iangap for the petitioner/accused. Mr. S Sen Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.
Date of hearing : 5th December, 2013
Date of judgment and Order : 5th December, 2013
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(ORAL: Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, Chief Justice)
Shri. S Wahlang, Advocate, present for the petitioner/revisionist. Shri. S Sen Gupta, Advocate, present for the respondent.
2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge/Special Court/Fast Track Court, Nongstoin in GR Case No.184 of 2009, whereby said Court has convicted the accused/revisionist (Shri.Wulningstar Wanniang) under Section 376 IPC and CRL. REVN.P. No.65/2013 Page 1 of 4 sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine convict has been directed to undergo further imprisonment for another one and a half year.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Lower Court Record.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.10.2009, the parents of victim were away from home when the accused/revisionist (Shri.Wulningstar Wanniang aged 27 years), who was a relative of the minor victim aged 2 years and 10 months picked her up from her house Tynrong Mawiawsne, and after taking her to his house committed raped on her. On the next day, the victim said to have developed swelling in her private parts and there was difficulty in discharge of urine. After about more than one month, the accused/revisionist confessed guilt before the parents of the victim, on which Shri.Spiekshon Thongni (father of the victim) gave First Information Report on 17.12.2009 to the Officer-in-Charge of Police Station, Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills, on the basis of which P.S. Case No.139(12)2009 was registered under Section 376 IPC against the accused/revisionist (Shri.Wulningstar Wanniang). Investigation was taken up by Sub-Inspector of Police F.K. Marak and the accused/revisionist (Shri.Wulningstar Wanniang) was arrested. During the investigation, his statement was got recorded before the Magistrate on 19.02.2010 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. In his statement recorded on said date, accused/revisionist (Shri.Wulningstar Wanniang) categorically confessed commission of rape by him with all details. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused/revisionist (Shri.Wulningstar Wanniang) on 16.03.2010.
CRL. REVN.P. No.65/2013 Page 2 of 4
5. The trial court after giving necessary copies to the accused/revisionist (Shri.Wulningstar Wanniang) fixed the date for framing of the charge on 31.07.2012. Charge was framed against the accused/revisionist by the Special Judge, Special Court/Fast Track Court, Nongstoin before whom the accused/revisionist pleaded guilty also at the time of framing charge. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court is based basically on the plea of guilty of the accused/revisionist (Shri.Wulningstar Wanniang).
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist drew the attention of this Court to the decisions of the Apex Court in: (i) (1981) 1 SCC 627: Khatri and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (ii) (2011) 2 SCC 490: Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh vs. Republic of India and (iii) (1986) 2 SCC 401: Suk Das vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh and submitted that no legal assistance was provided to the accused/revisionist nor principles laid down by the Apex Court in recording the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. were adhered to.
7. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the revisionist. Since it is a case where the accused/revisionist has not only confessed guilt before the Magistrate, but also pleaded guilty before the trial court, the niceties or the technicality of law raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist is of little help to the convict. It is relevant to mention here that in the Autonomous Tribal Areas of the State of Meghalaya in view of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India, technicalities of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are not applicable, and it is only the spirit of the code which applies to the cases decided by the Judicial authorities in such Autonomous Tribal Areas. Having gone through the record of the trial court, this Court finds no illegality in conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. Rather convict CRL. REVN.P. No.65/2013 Page 3 of 4 has been awarded less than the minimum sentence provided for such crime committed against a child of two and a half years.
8. Therefore, the revision is dismissed. LCR be sent back.
(Prafulla C. Pant) CHIEF JUSTICE th 5 December, 2013 Lam CRL. REVN.P. No.65/2013 Page 4 of 4