Meghalaya High Court: The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere, CJ. and W. Diengdoh, J. while dismissing the appeal upheld the conviction under Sections 6 and 8, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The Court directed the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and District Child Protection Officers (DCPO) to ensure the benefits under the POCSO are made available to the survivor and her child at the earliest.
Background
The case arose when complainant got the information of the incident of sexual assault on her daughter after two months of the incident when her daughter (survivor) did not get her menstrual cycle. The complainant then bought her a pregnancy kit, which confirmed that she was pregnant. When she enquired from her daughter, she disclosed the incident to her mother that the appellant has forcibly raped her in a jungle near their house in the month of June, 2021 and threatened her not to disclose the incident to her parents. The complainant took her daughter to consult a doctor, as the survivor was aged 15 years, the doctor was informed about the rape, resulting in her pregnancy.
The appellant after getting the information of her pregnancy, came to her house along with his father and brother-in-law and admitted that the child inside the womb was his, however, he was unable to take care of her. Then the complainant lodged an FIR on 2 November 2021 against the appellant with the Mawlai Police Station.
In furtherance of the complaint, the officer-in-charge, Mawlai Police Station, East Khasi Hills, registered a case as against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 POCSO. Pursuant thereto, the appellant was arrested on 2 November 2021. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of the witnesses, including that of the survivor, both under Sections 161 and 164, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
It was deposed by the medical officer who examined the survivor, regarding the details of sexual violence that there was penetration by the penis and that ejaculation had occurred inside the vagina only and that the incident was four and half months back. The medical officer had further stated that when she examined survivor, she opined on the basis of the history and clinical findings that the victim was 4 to 5 months pregnant, at the time of examination.
The Special Judge (POCSO) after examining the facts and issues, framed the charges against the appellant for various offences, both, under the POCSO Act as well as under the provisions of the Penal Code, 1860. The trial court vide judgment and order dated 4 December 2023, convicted the appellant under Sections 6 and 8 POCSO for 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and 3 years simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹15000. The appellant aggrieved by the judgement filed this appeal.
Decision and Analysis
The Court observed that from the documents on record, it is evident that survivor was sexually assaulted by the appellant. It shows that there is no challenge to the date of birth of the prosecutrix i.e., survivor that she was a minor at the relevant time, aged 15 years. The Court while considering the aforesaid evidence of survivor and complainant, which was duly corroborated by the medical evidence of medical officer, found that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as against the appellant and as such, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court.
The Court accordingly dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 6, POCSO Act to undergo 20 years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of ₹10,000 in default of payment of fine to undergo further 6 months simple imprisonment; under Section 8, POCSO Act to suffer 3 years simple imprisonment with fine of ₹5000 in default of payment of fine to undergo further 6 months imprisonment. The trial court directed the sentences to run concurrently
The Court while passing the judgment emphasised that the survivor, who was a minor at the time of the incident, was constrained due to financial reasons to drop out of school following the incident and had delivered a child on 8 August 2022. As the survivor stated that she was studying in Class-IX at the relevant time and that she is interested in continuing her education and has not received any compensation, hence, the Court further directed the DLSA and the DCPO, East Khasi Hills District to verify the following:
-
whether the survivor has received any benefit or compensation either from the State or Central Government; and
-
whether she intends to pursue her education or any vocational training etc.
The Court further added to the direction that if the survivor does not intend to pursue her education or any vocational training, the DLSA and the DCPO, East Khasi Hills District must ensure that the benefits under the POCSO, as may be applicable to the survivor and her child, are made available to them at the earliest.
[Dresster Kurbah v. State of Meghalaya, Crl.A. No. 15 of 2024, decided on 20-5-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: H.L. Shangreiso, Senior Advocate, M. Hajong, W. Khongsni, Advocates
For the Respondent: R. Gurung, Additional Public Procecutor, S. Bhattacharjee, GA
