Julius Dorphang case: HC rule out interference with judgments

The Meghalaya High Court has decided not to interfere with the judgment of the trial court which sentenced former Mawhati legislator Julius Dorphang to 25 years in imprisonment for raping a minor girl even as it directed that the survivor be paid compensation of Rs 20 lakh.

“Accordingly, the term of imprisonment of 25 years as awarded by the trial court by indicating cogent reasons therefor, does not call for any interference,” the division bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee said in its judgment while dismissing the appeal filed by Dorphang.

The Court said considering the age of the convict, such a tenure could be 15 years or 20 years or 30 years or any number of years in between. The discretion that is exercised is for the benefit of the convict by not awarding the maximum sentence permissible.

“In such a scenario, even though there is no specific prescription in the provision for awarding a sentence of 15 years or 20 years or 22 years of imprisonment if such tenure is indicated, it will be deemed to fall within the bandwidth of discretion made available to the court by the relevant provision,” it added.

Dorphang was challenging the order dated August 24, 2021 passed by the Special Judge Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO), FS Sangma in Ri-Bhoi district which sentenced him to 25 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, the Court has directed the State to ensure the continued well-being of the survivor, at least till she reaches the age of 25.

“The fine, if paid, and a total amount of compensation not less than Rs.20 lakh, should be provided by the State to the survivor by way of investments that would mature on a periodic basis for her to receive the same. In other words, the State will pay a further Rs.5 lakh to the survivor by way of compensation, in addition to the sum of Rs.15 lakh that she receives from the fine. If the appellant does not pay the fine and serves a further five years of rigorous imprisonment, the State will make over the equivalent amount of Rs 15 lakh to the survivor,” it said.

“The total amount of Rs 20 lakh must be invested in the name of the survivor within three months from date with the State taking adequate measures to ensure that the entire amount is not squandered in a hurry or the survivor is cheated of any part of it by any other person,” the Court added.

The judgment further stated that the State will also be responsible for taking care of all the medical needs of the survivor free of cost and befitting a Grade-II officer of the State for at least the next 20 years.

In addition, if there is any special programme or working opportunity that is available or for which the survivor qualifies or if there is any late education programme for women where the survivor may be accommodated, the State should provide all assistance to the survivor to lead a remaining normal and healthy life, it said while asserting “The society at large owes a huge apology to the brave young survivor for having failed one of its most precious and tender.”

Further, the Court stated that nothing said herein and nothing done pursuant to this judgment and order will stand in the way of the proceedings arising out of the FIR filed on behalf of the survivor at Madanryting being brought to a logical conclusion in accordance with law.

Meghalaya among 9 states to withdraw general consent to CBI

As many as nine states, including Telangana and Meghalaya, have withdrawn the general consent given to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for probing certain offences.

The information was disclosed by Union Minister Jitendra Singh during the winter session of the Parliament in December 2022.

The minister informed the House that as per Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, the CBI requires the consent of the respective state governments to conduct investigations in their jurisdiction.

The state governments had granted general consent to the CBI for the investigation of a specified class of offences against specified categories of persons, enabling the agency to register and investigate those specified matters, Singh elaborated. However, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Punjab, Rajasthan, Telangana, and West Bengal have withdrawn the general consent to the CBI to investigate cases. This move could potentially create roadblocks for the CBI to investigate cases in these states.

Non-BJP-ruled states have accused the CBI of “selectively targeting” Opposition leaders.

The withdrawal of consent could also affect the CBI’s ability to investigate cases that have national significance or interstate ramifications. It remains to be seen how the CBI will navigate these challenges and continue to discharge its duties effectively.

This development highlights the need for a comprehensive review of the DSPE Act, 1946, and its provisions related to the CBI’s jurisdiction and powers.

In March this year, a Parliamentary Committee emphasised the withdrawal of general consent for the CBI probe by several states and stated that the existing law governing the federal probe agency has “several limitations”.

The committee has suggested the need to enact new legislation that defines the CBI’s status, functions, and powers.

“The Committee feels that the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act has many limitations and therefore, recommends that there is a need to enact a new law and define the status, functions and powers of the CBI and also lay down safeguards to ensure objectivity and impartiality in its functioning,” it said.

Rudra Vikram Singh, Supreme Court lawyer said that withdrawal of general consent means CBI does not have the general consent of a state government, it is required to apply for consent on a case-by-case basis and cannot act before the consent is given.

“However CBI can continue to investigate cases in a state registered prior to the withdrawal of general consent. In July 2022, the Calcutta High Court, in a case of illegal coal mining and cattle smuggling being investigated by the CBI, ruled that the central agency cannot be stopped from investigating a Central government employee in another state,” said Singh.

“In its order, the High Court observed that corruption cases across the country must be treated equally and that Central government employees could not be exempted from an investigation on the grounds that their offices were located in states that have withdrawn general consent. The judgment also said that withdrawal of general consent and its ramifications would be applicable in cases where exclusively state government employees were involved,” he added.

This order, however, has been challenged in the Supreme Court, where the matter is still pending. Hence, as it stands, the CBI can use the Calcutta High Court order to its advantage to carry on certain investigations until the order is struck down by the Supreme Court.

Gurmeet Nehra, legal scholar and member of the Supreme Court Bar Association said that CBI can approach the local court of that state for issuing a search warrant and it can register a case in Delhi and proceed with the investigation.