Life Sentence 'Too Harsh': Meghalaya High Court Reduces Father's Jail Term To 25 Yrs For Repeatedly Raping Minor Daughter

The Meghalaya High Court has upheld the conviction of a man for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his minor daughter under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). It however reduced his sentence from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment of 25 years.

A Division Bench of Justice W. Diengdoh and Justice B. Bhattacharjee held that the sentence needed to be tempered in view of the principle of reformation. It observed that “the punishment meted to him is too harsh.”

An FIR was registered on 27 January 2019 at the Women Police Station, Nongpoh. The survivor's mother stated that the survivor had told her grandparents that the appellant-father had sexually assaulted her for four years. The latest incident was in November 2018. The appellant was arrested on 27 January 2019 and was never released on bail.

A charge sheet was filed under Section 5(1)(m)(n) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Trial Court framed a charge only under Section 6. The appellant first pleaded guilty. The Trial Court did not convict him on that plea and recorded the evidence of eight witnesses. He denied the allegations when examined under Section 313 CrPC.

By judgment dated 18 June 2021 the Trial Court convicted him under Section 5(l)(m) and (n) of the POCSO Act. By order dated 25 June 2021 it sentenced him under Section 6 to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000.

The appellant contended that he had been convicted under provisions for which no specific charge had been framed, arguing that this had prejudiced his defence. He also questioned the survivor's testimony pointing out that she had not specified the dates and places of the alleged incidents and that her ability to testify had not been assessed. Further, he argued that the prosecution's failure to produce the FSL report despite collecting biological samples, warranted an adverse inference. He also claimed that the trial court had failed to put all the incriminating circumstances to him during his examination.

On the charge the High Court held that the objection could not be sustained. It relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pynchemalangaki Bareh v. State of Meghalaya (2026) where it was held that non-framing of a charge or defects in it do not by themselves vitiate a trial, if accused did not suffer prejudice.

On the survivor's testimony, the High Court found that she described all seven occasions in her examination in chief. She gave the place which was mostly a jungle and the time of about 8 pm for the sixth occasion. The High Court observed:

“In the cross-examination, the appellant/accused has not been able to contradict or demolish the evidence of the survivor as regard to the number of times she was sexually assaulted by him and there is also no suggestion to say that such sexual assault has not taken place. Therefore, the failure of the appellant to contradict or to challenge the veracity of the statement of the survivor has to be taken as unrebutted.”

The High Court noted that the doctor had confirmed an old rupture of the hymen, which supported the survivor's account. It accordingly accepted her testimony as truthful and accurate. The Court also relied on Ganesan v. State (2020) to observe that a conviction can be based on the survivor's testimony alone.

On age, the High Court relied on the birth certificate. It held that the survivor was below 12 years when the assaults began which attracted Section 5(m). It held that Section 5(n) and 5(l) were attracted because the appellant was her biological father and committed the assault more than once. The conviction was accordingly upheld.

On sentence, the High Court observed that "reformation is one of the cardinal principles of sentencing" and thus, taking into account the age of the appellant and his societal background, the Court modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 25 years cumulatively. The fine of Rs. 10,000 and the default term of three months were maintained.

The appeal was disposed.

Counsel for the Appellant: S.D. Upadhaya, Legal Aid Counsel and A. Synrem, Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondent: R. Gurung, Government Advocate and S. Sengupta, Additional Public Prosecutor.