Meghalaya High Court
Reserved On: 12.05.2026 vs State Of Meghalaya Through Public … on 20 May, 2026
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2026:MLHC:487-DB
Serial No.02
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.A.No.15/2024
Reserved on: 12.05.2026
Pronouncement on:20.05.2026
Shri Dresster Kurbah ..... Appellant
Vs.
State of Meghalaya through Public Prosecutor ..... Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Appellant : Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, Sr.Adv with
Ms. M. Hajong, Adv
Mr. W. Khongsni, Adv
For the Respondent : Mr. R. Gurung, Addl.PP with
Mrs. S. Bhattacharjee, GA
i) Whether approved for reporting in No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice)
By this appeal, the appellant has impugned the
judgment and order dated 4th December, 2023, passed by the
learned Special Judge (POCSO), District, East Khasi Hills,
Shillong in Special (POCSO) Case No.8 of 2022, by which the
Page 1 of 13
2026:MLHC:487-DB
learned Special Judge (POCSO) was pleased to convict and
sentence the appellant as under;
– for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the
POCSO Act to undergo 20 years of rigorous imprisonment with
fine of ₹10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo
further six months simple imprisonment;
– under Section 8 of the POCSO Act to suffer three years
simple imprisonment with fine of ₹5000/-, in default of
payment of fine to undergo further six months imprisonment.
– Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. A few facts as are necessary to decide the aforesaid
appeal are as under:
3. PW2, mother of the survivor lodged an FIR on 2nd
November, 2021 alleging therein, that when she took her
daughter (survivor) aged 15 years to the hospital and upon
inquiry, the survivor informed that the appellant had sexually
assaulted her sometime in the month of June, 2021.
Page 2 of 13
2026:MLHC:487-DB
Accordingly, the Officer-in-charge, Mawlai Police Station, East
Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, registered a case as against the
appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 5(j)(ii)/6
of the POCSO Act. Pursuant thereto, the appellant was
arrested on 2nd 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 CrPC. On completion of the investigation,
chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of the learned
Special Judge (POCSO), East Khasi Hills, Shillong.
4. The learned Special Judge (POCSO) framed charge
against the appellant for various offences, both, under the
POCSO Act as well as under the provisions of the IPC. The
appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to
be tried.
5. The prosecution in support of its case examined four
witnesses i.e. – PW1-survivor, PW2-complainant and mother of
the survivor, PW3-Dr. Evangeline Kharkongor who examined
Page 3 of 13
2026:MLHC:487-DB
the survivor and PW4-WPI Smti. Lavinia Kongwang, the
Investigating Officer.
6. Thereafter, the trial court recorded the statement of the
appellant under Section 313 CrPC. The appellant denied
having committed any offence. He, however, admitted that he
was in a love relationship with the survivor and that the act
was consensual and, that he was ready to take care of the
survivor and the unborn child. No defence witness was
examined by the appellant in support of his defence.
7. The trial court vide judgment and order dated 4th
December, 2023, convicted and sentenced the appellant as
stated hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.
8. Mr. Shangreiso, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the appellant submitted that it was a case of consent i.e.,
consensual relationship between the appellant and the
survivor, and that the same is evident from the evidence on
record and as such, no offences as alleged under the POCSO
Act are disclosed. He further submitted that the prosecution
Page 4 of 13
2026:MLHC:487-DB
had also failed to prove the birth certificate of the survivor i.e.,
the survivor was a minor at the relevant time.
9. Mr. Gurung, learned GA supported the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence. He submitted that the
prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
appellant had sexually assaulted the survivor aged 15 years
and that the said evidence of the survivor was duly
corroborated by PW2-survivor’s mother and complainant and
PW3, the medical officer, to whom the survivor had disclosed
history of sexual assault.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties
and having perused the evidence and documents on record,
we are of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial court, for reasons to follow.
11. The prosecution examined the complainant and mother
of the survivor as PW2. PW2 has deposed that she got the
information of the incident of sexual assault on her daughter
Page 5 of 13
2026:MLHC:487-DB
after about two months of the incident when her daughter
(survivor) did not get her menstrual cycle. She has stated that
when she enquired from her daughter (survivor), she disclosed
that the appellant has forcibly raped her in a jungle near their
house. On learning of the incident, PW2 went to a medical
store and bought a pregnancy test kit and on testing found the
report positive i.e., her daughter was pregnant. PW2
thereafter, consulted a doctor alongwith the survivor aged 15
years, where the doctor was informed that the appellant had
forcibly raped the survivor resulting in her pregnancy. PW2
has further deposed that thereafter, the appellant came to her
house along with his father and brother-in-law and when she
questioned the appellant, he admitted that the child inside the
womb was his, however, he was unable to take care, as he
already had a girlfriend. Accordingly, PW2 went and lodged an
FIR as against the appellant with the Mawlai Police Station.
The FIR is exhibited as PExhibit-3. PW2 also produced the
original birth certificate of her daughter which is exhibited as
Page 6 of 13
2026:MLHC:487-DB
PExhibit-5. It further appears from the evidence of PW2 that
the survivor delivered a male child on 8th August, 2022.
12. In the cross-examination, nothing material has been
elicited to disbelieve her testimony. PW2 has stated that she
did not know whether her daughter was in a relationship with
the appellant or not; and whether the appellant was having a
girlfriend or not. PW2 has denied the fact that the appellant
has agreed to take care of her daughter and her child, when
she asked him to do the same. She has further stated that it
was a fact that the appellant had threatened her daughter not
to disclose the incident to her parents.
13. PW1 is the survivor, who was a minor at the relevant
time, having been born on 23rd March, 2006. Thus, at the
relevant time, the survivor was 15 years of age. PW1 has
deposed that she was constrained due to financial reasons to
drop out of school following the incident and had delivered a
child on 8th August, 2022. She has stated that she was
studying in Class-IX at the relevant time and that she is
Page 7 of 13
2026:MLHC:487-DB
interested in continuing her education and has not received
any compensation.
14. According to PW1, at the time of the incident she was
staying in her village. She has stated that on 14th June, 2021,
it was her eldest sister’s birthday and that the appellant was
invited, as he was related to the same clan as her father and
was a resident of the same village. She further deposed that
the appellant was helping in cooking of food and other related
works and had asked her to come and meet him near one path
situated near the house between 6 to 7 pm; that she went to
meet him; that after spending some time at the roadside, she
told the appellant that she wanted to leave as her parents
would be searching for her; that the appellant asked her to
stay back and demanded for a relationship, which she refused;
that she told him that she was a minor aged 15 years and was
going to school; that suddenly the appellant laid her on the
ground and undressed himself and undressed her and had
forcible sexual intercourse with her; that after the incident,
the appellant wore his clothes; that she put on her clothes and
Page 8 of 13
2026:MLHC:487-DB
went home crying; and that the appellant told her that she
should not disclose the incident to any person. PW1 has
stated that she returned home and that the appellant followed
her, however, she did not disclose the incident to anyone.
15. PW1 in her evidence has further deposed that when she
missed her menstrual cycle, her mother bought her a
pregnancy kit, which confirmed that she was pregnant; that
she disclosed the incident to her mother pursuant to which,
the appellant and his father and brother-in-law visited their
house; that the appellant told them that the incident had
happened mistakenly and that he was not in love with her nor
could he take care of her. The appellant is further stated to
have disclosed that he has a wife and was in a relationship for
about one and a half year. Based on the same, PW1’s mother
i.e., PW2 lodged an FIR as against the appellant with the
Mawlai Police Station. The delay has also been explained by
PW1 in her examination-in-chief inasmuch as, she has stated
that the delay in filing the complaint was due to the appellant
being related to her father’s clan and that his wife was also a
Page 9 of 13
2026:MLHC:487-DB
close relative. PW1 has also identified her statement recorded
under Section 164 CrPC.
16. In her cross-examination, the material evidence that has
come against the appellant has not been refuted or denied by
the appellant. PW1 has categorically denied that if she was a
major, she would have agreed to have a relationship with the
appellant. She has also stated that although there was a
proposal from the appellant’s side, it was broken off prior to
the incident.
17. Thus, from the evidence of PW1 (survivor) and the
mother of the prosecutrix, it is evident that PW1 was sexually
assaulted by the appellant. The evidence on record shows that
there is no challenge to the date of birth of the prosecutrix i.e.,
PW1 and as such, the prosecution has proved that the
survivor, was a minor at the relevant time, aged 15 years.
18. The aforesaid evidence of PW1 and PW2 is duly
corroborated by the Medical Officer, who was examined by the
prosecution as PW3.
Page 10 of 13
2026:MLHC:487-DB
19. PW3 in her evidence has stated as under:
“Thereafter, I enquired from the victim girl about the
incident and she narrated the incident to me and I
recorded the brief history of incident. According to the
survivor, on 14.06.2021, the accused Dress Kurbah
asked her to meet her at around 06:00 pm near to of
forest situated nearby her house. Accordingly, she went
and talked with him by sitting together. When she was
about to leave that place, the accused asked to her for
sexual relationship but she refused first. Then he
forcefully held her and undressed her and inserted his
private part in her vagina. After finishing the act, he
allowed her to go home and told her not to inform to
family members about the incident.”
20. PW3 has further deposed that details regarding sexual
violence i.e., there was penetration by the penis and that
ejaculation had occurred inside the vagina only; that the
accused had touched and fondled her breast during
commission of act; and that the incident was four and half
months back. PW3 has further deposed that when she
examined PW1, 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. In the cross-examination, again
nothing is elicited to contradict what was disclosed by PW3.
Page 11 of 13
2026:MLHC:487-DB
21. Considering the aforesaid evidence of PW1 and PW2,
which is duly corroborated by the medical evidence of PW3, we
find 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.
22. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
23. The DLSA, East Khasi Hills District and the DCPO, East
Khasi Hills District to verify whether the survivor has received
any benefit or compensation either from the State or Central
Government; and whether she intends to pursue her
education/any vocational training etc. If not, the DLSA, East
Khasi Hills District and the DCPO, East Khasi Hills District to
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.
Page 12 of 13
2026:MLHC:487-DB
24. A report to this effect be submitted to this Court within
eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
(W. Diengdoh) (Revati Mohite Dere)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
20.05.2026
"Lam DR-PS"
Page 13 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Date: 2026.05.20 16:34:03 IST
