Mr. Joseph Adivasi v. the State of Nagaland and Anr.

Gauhati HC9 Jun 2026I.A.(Crl.)/26/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; 1365 days delay; criminal appeal CRL.A(J)/9/2026; I.A.(Crl.)/26/2026; Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench; conviction under Sections 376(2)(a)/376(3) IPC read with Section 4 POCSO Act 2012; Special Judge POCSO Kohima judgment dated 02.05.2022; 20 years simple imprisonment; Rs. 5,000/- fine; convict in custody since 2019; substantive justice prevails over delay; appeal to be heard on merits; notice to respondent no. 2 at admission stage; Registry to list appeal for admission.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 1365 days in filing the accompanying criminal appeal (linked case CRL.A(J)/9/2026); Registry directed to list the appeal for admission. ¶¶28

Mr. Joseph Adivasi Vs the State of Nagaland… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of delay of 1365 days in filing the accompanying criminal appeal (linked case CRL.A(J)/9/2026); Registry directed to list the appeal for admission.

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 1365 days in filing the accompanying criminal appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2022 of the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Kohima should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶¶22

Court's answer

Having regard to the nature of the conviction and particularly the 20-year sentence, substantive justice should prevail over any period of delay that has occurred in the case of a convict.

¶¶26

Ratio / Principle

Rather than dismissing the criminal appeal on the ground of delay, the appeal should be heard on merits.

¶¶26

Key takeaways

Notice to respondent no. 2 at this stage is not necessary; notices would be issued at the time of admission of the appeal for her/his appearance and participation in the appeal proceedings.obiter¶¶27
The instant application seeking condonation of delay of 1365 days is allowed.ratio¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench), I.A.(Crl.)/26/2026, order dated 10-06-2026 delivered by Manish Choudhury, J (bench: Manish Choudhury and Pranjal Das, JJ). The applicant-appellant, undergoing a sentence of 20 years' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- (with default stipulation) imposed by Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2022 of the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Kohima, for offences under Sections 376(2)(a)/376(3) IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, applied under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone a delay of 1365 days in filing the accompanying criminal appeal (linked case CRL.A(J)/9/2026). He had been in custody since 2019 (over six years) and obtained the opportunity to appeal only recently through the Central Jail Authorities and District Legal Services Authority. Holding that in the case of a convict substantive justice should prevail over any period of delay, and that rather than dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay it should be heard on merits, the Court allowed the application, deferred notice to respondent no. 2 until the admission stage, and directed the Registry to list the appeal for admission.

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC020004472026

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/26/2026

¶5

MR. JOSEPH ADIVASI A RESIDENT OF PARAMEDICAL COLONY, KOHIMA, NAGALAND - 797001, THROUGH THE JAILOR, DISTRICT JAIL, KOHIMA, NAGALAND

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NAGALAND 2:SMTI. GHOTOLI (COMPLAINANT) W/O VICTO R/O PARAMEDICAL COLONY KOHIMA, NAGALAND - 79700

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : ARENLONG,

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND,

¶10

Linked Case : CRL.A(J)/9/2026

¶11

MR. JOSEPH ADIVASI A RESIDENT OF PARAMEDICAL COLONY KOHIMA NAGALAND - 797001. CURRENTLY IN CENTRAL JAIL DIMAPUR THROUGH THE JAILOR CENTRAL JAIL DIMAPUR, NAGALAND

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NAGALAND

¶15

2:SMTI. GHOTOLI (COMPLAINANT) W/O VICTO R/O PARAMEDICAL COLONY KOHIMA, NAGALAND - 797001 -----------Advocate for : ARENLONG Advocate for : P.P NAGALAND appearing for THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 10-06-2026

¶20

(M. Choudhury, J)

¶21

Heard Ms. Tiakumla, learned Legal Aid counsel for the applicant-appellant. Also heard Ms. S. Mere, learned P.P for the State/respondent No. 1.

¶22

2. The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred by the applicant-appellant seeking condonation of delay of 1365 days, which period of delay, is stated to have occurred in filing the accompanying criminal appeal.

¶23

3. The applicant as the appellant has filed the accompanying criminal appeal against a Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2022 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Kohima, Nagaland. By the said Judgment and Order, the applicant-appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 376(2) (a)/376(3), Indian Penal Code [IPC], read with Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012. In view of Section 4, POCSO Act, the applicant-appellant has been

¶24

Page No.# 3/3 sentenced to undergo 20 years of simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with default stipulation.

¶25

4. It is submitted that the applicant-appellant is presently serving the sentence. It is further submitted that the applicant-appellant is in custody since 2019. Meaning thereby, he has spent more than 6 years incarceration. It is only recently, the applicant-appellant has got the opportunity to prefer an appeal against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence through the Central Jail Authorities and the District Legal Services Authority.

¶26

5. Having regard to the nature of conviction and, more particularly, the sentence for imprisonment of 20 years, this Court is of the considered view that it is the substantive justice which should prevail over any period of delay which has occurred, in case of a convict. Rather than dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, the appeal should be heard on merits.

¶27

6. This Court observes that notice to the respondent no. 2 at this stage is not necessary, as at the time of admission of the appeal, if any, notices would invariably be issued to the respondent no. 2 for his/her appearance and participation in the appeal proceedings.

¶28

7. In view of the reasons assigned hereinabove, the instant application seeking condonation of delay of 1365 days is allowed.

¶29

8. Registry to list the appeal for admission.

Sd/

Sd/-

JUDGE

JUDGE