Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Cav: 14.05.2026 vs State Of Meghalaya Represented By … on 20 May, 2026
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2026:MLHC:483-DB
Serial No. 01
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.A. No. 54 of 2024
Date of CAV: 14.05.2026
Date of pronouncement: 20.05.2026
Shanborlang Thabah
...Appellant
- versus -
State of Meghalaya represented by Commissioner & Secretary
Home, Shillong.
...Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Appellant : Mr S.A. Pandit, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr K. Khan, AAG with
Mr A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl Sr GA
Mr A.S. Dey, GA
i) Whether approved for Yes
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes
in press:
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice)
By this appeal, the appellant has impugned the judgment
and order dated 3rd August, 2023, passed by the learned Special
Judge (POCSO), West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin, in Special
Page 1 of 14
2026:MLHC:483-DB
(POCSO) Case No. 31 of 2020 convicting the appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and
sentencing him to suffer 15 years rigorous imprisonment with
fine of ₹50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo
six months simple imprisonment.
In addition, the learned Special Judge under Section 357A
Cr.P.C. and provisions of the POCSO Act recommended
compensation of ₹ 2 lakhs to be paid to the survivor, by the
Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority for the welfare of the
survivor. Interim compensation if any paid, to be adjusted with
the final compensation.
2. The factual matrix of the case is as under:
The appellant is the father of the survivor, who at the
relevant time was between 14 and 15 years of age. According to
PW1 (complainant), his niece was sexually assaulted on multiple
occasions by her father i.e., the appellant at the residence. It is
the prosecution case that the survivor informed her cousin
Page 2 of 14
2026:MLHC:483-DBsister, who informed her mother (aunt of the survivor) of the
sexual assault, who in turn informed PW1 of the same. An FIR
came to be registered accordingly, as against the appellant
alleging offences under the POCSO Act with the Mairang Police
Station. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the said
case in the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO).
The trial court framed charge as against the appellant to
which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The
prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of its case;
PW1 – Uncle of the survivor.
PW2 – Survivor.
PW3 – Mother of the survivor.
PW4 – Relative of the survivor.
PW5 – Headman and distant relative of the survivor.
PW6 – Dr Chanmiki Lakiang Challam, Medial & Health Officer.
PW7 – WP/S.I. Ralchelish R. Marak.
Page 3 of 14
2026:MLHC:483-DB
Thereafter, the accused’s 313 statement was recorded in
which he denied the incriminating evidence against him. The
appellant did not examine any witness on his behalf.
After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), convicted
and sentenced the appellant as stated aforesaid in paragraph 1
of the judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
evidence deposed to by the survivor (PW2) cannot be relied upon
in view of the discrepancies in the evidence of the survivor and
her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He submitted
that PW2 (survivor) in her 164 statement has stated that the
appellant only attempted to sexually assault her and not that he
actually committed the said acts of sexual assault, whereas in
her testimony before the Court, she has falsely alleged sexual
assault by the appellant. He submitted that in this view of the
matter, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of the
survivor i.e., PW2. Learned counsel further submitted that,
Page 4 of 14
2026:MLHC:483-DB
except for the evidence of the prosecutrix i.e., PW2 which does
not inspire confidence, the other evidence of the witnesses being
hearsay, cannot be relied upon.
4. Mr K. Khan, learned AAG submitted that the appellant
had grossly abused and misused the trust reposed in him as a
father, by sexually assaulting PW2 (survivor) his daughter. He
submitted that the testimony of the prosecutrix inspires
confidence and that the acts of sexual assault by the appellant
have gone unchallenged and as such, no interference is
warranted in the impugned judgment and order of conviction
and sentence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties
and perused the evidence with their assistance.
6. PW1 is the uncle of PW2 (survivor) and complainant in the
said case. He has disclosed that he learnt of the sexual assault
on his niece by the appellant on 12.07.2020, when his elder
Page 5 of 14
2026:MLHC:483-DB
sister disclosed the same to him. He has stated that on learning
of the said sexual assault on his niece, he inquired with the niece
about the incidents, pursuant to which she narrated to him how
the appellant on numerous occasions had committed
penetrative sexual assault on her, at the residence. On learning
the same, he reported the incident to the police, who registered
an FIR as against the appellant. The said FIR has been exhibited
as Exhibit-P1. His statement was also recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C. PW1 has disclosed that his niece was 15 years of
age at the relevant time. He has also handed over to the police
the birth certificate of his niece.
In cross-examination, PW1 has denied that the sexual
assault was not actually committed, but was only an attempt.
Nothing material has been elicited in the cross-examination of
PW1 to disbelieve his testimony with respect to the disclosure
made by the survivor to him.
Page 6 of 14
2026:MLHC:483-DB
7. PW2 is the survivor, who at the relevant time i.e., at the
time of the incident was about 14 years of age. PW2 in her
evidence has stated in detail, the manner in which the appellant
had sexually assaulted her. Question Nos. 7 and 8 and answers
to the said questions, are reproduced hereinbelow;
“Q7. What did the accused do to you?
Ans: At the time of the first incident I was 14 years old and
I do not remember in what Class I was studying. One
particular day I do not remember the date, month and
year of the incident, it was in the night time, when all my
siblings were sleeping and my mother was not at home. I
was sleeping with my younger sister when the accused
came to my bedroom and started caressing by breast and
touched my private parts. I resisted and thereafter the
accused left. The same act continued on numerous
occasions about three to four times in a week.
Q8. What happened thereafter?
Ans: On one occasion I do not remember the date of the
incident, the accused person during the night again came
to my room when I was sleeping alone and my mother was
not at home, the accused removed my pants and
undergarments and similarly removed his pants only
above his knees and laid on top of me and committed
penetrative sexual assault upon me. I resisted and fought
back and kicked the accused person and thereafter he left
my room. The same incident occurred on two occasions.
The accused told me not to report the incident to my
mother.
Page 7 of 14
2026:MLHC:483-DB
Q9 What did you do after the incident?
“Ans: When I was in Class VI or VII I narrated the incident
to my elder cousin sister (name withheld) and my cousin
sister reported about the incident to her own mother
(name withheld) and thereafter my Meiheh (name
withheld) reported about the incident to my uncle PW-1
and other family members. After my family members
learnt about the incident, I myself narrated to them about
the incident.”
PW2 has further deposed that she disclosed the incident
to her cousin sister, who in turn informed her mother and, who
in turn informed the same to PW1 and other family members.
She has stated that after her family members learnt about the
incident, she too narrated to them the incidents of sexual
assault. She has deposed her date of birth as 07.08.2004 and
has admitted that the statement was recorded by the police as
well as the Magistrate.
It is pertinent to note that, in the cross-examination, there
is no cross with respect to what was stated by PW2 in question
Nos. 7 and 8. There are no denials taken. PW2 admitted in her
cross-examination that when the incident took place, her
mother was not at home; that when the appellant touched her
Page 8 of 14
2026:MLHC:483-DB
private parts, she was sharing the bed with her younger sister,
who was 2 years of age therefore, she did not raise any alarm;
that she was afraid of her father and as such, did not report the
incident; that the appellant committed penetrative sexual
assault on her when her mother was not at home and only her
younger siblings were at home and that she narrated to her elder
cousin sister that the appellant had committed the penetrative
sexual assault on her. Infact, in the cross-examination, PW2 has
categorically stated that “It is a fact that I have stated in my
statement u/S 164 Cr.P.C. that the accused initially attempted to
commit penetrative sexual assault upon me and was
subsequently successful.”
Keeping the aforesaid cross-examination in mind, it is
evident that there are no suggestions or denial given to the said
witness.
8. PW3 is the mother of the survivor. It appears from her
evidence that she learnt of the incident only after her husband
Page 9 of 14
2026:MLHC:483-DB
was arrested and when her younger brother (PW1) informed her
that the appellant had sexually assaulted PW2. Her evidence is
not of any assistance either to the prosecution or to the defence.
9. PW4 is a relative of the survivor. He has stated that on
12.07.2020, he received a call from PW1, asking him to come to
his residence; that when he went to PW1’s residence, PW1
informed him that the appellant had raped his daughter (PW2);
and that on inquiry from the survivor, she disclosed that she
was raped by her father in 2019.
There is no cross-examination of the said witness except
that he did not make any inquiry from the appellant about the
incident.
10. PW5 is also from the survivor’s clan and is distantly
related to her. He too has deposed on similar lines as that of
PW4 i.e., that he went to PW1’s house on learning of the
incident, where the survivor disclosed that the appellant had
Page 10 of 14
2026:MLHC:483-DB
committed penetrative sexual assault on her. Pursuant thereto,
they all accompanied PW1 to the Police Station.
Again, nothing material has come in the cross-
examination of the said witness to discredit his testimony.
11. PW6 – Dr Chanmiki Lakiang Challam, is the Medial and
Health Officer, who was attached to Tirot Singh Memorial
Hospital, Mairang at the relevant time. He has disclosed that the
survivor i.e., PW2 narrated to him the incident that had occurred
at her own residence one year ago i.e., when she had slept, the
appellant held her hand, undressed her and sexually assaulted
her. The appellant is also alleged to have told the survivor not to
disclose the incident and had lured her with money, which she
refused.
PW6 has deposed and observed in the medical case papers
that on local examination, there was mild redness around the
vulval region and that the hymen was not found intact.
Page 11 of 14
2026:MLHC:483-DB
12. Keeping in mind the aforesaid evidence on record, we find
that the testimony of PW2 inspires confidence and there is no
reason to disbelieve her testimony. Infact, as noted aforesaid,
there are no denials taken with respect to what was deposed to
by PW2. Infact, the answers to the two questions i.e., Q Nos. 7
and 8 of the survivor’s testimony, there are no suggestions given
to PW2 as to why she would falsely implicate or depose against
the appellant, more particularly, when the appellant was her
father. The aforesaid evidence is duly corroborated by some of
the witnesses, who have categorically stated that the survivor
had disclosed to them about the sexual assault committed by
the appellant. The said evidence is also duly corroborated by the
evidence of PW6, Dr Chanmiki Lakiang Challam, who examined
the survivor and found that her hymen was not intact. We also
do not find any delay in reporting the incident of sexual assault
by the appellant on PW2, as delay, will have to be considered in
the light of the age of the prosecutrix and her relationship with
the appellant. We find that the appellant, her father had clearly
breached all norms of morality and decency by sexually
Page 12 of 14
2026:MLHC:483-DB
assaulting his young daughter, aged 14 years at the relevant
time. He had also breached the fiduciary relationship and the
trust reposed by the survivor on the appellant.
13. Considering the evidence on record, we find that the
prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt qua
the appellant and as such, no interference is warranted in the
impugned judgment and order dated 3rd August, 2023,
convicting and sentencing the appellant as stated aforesaid.
14. The appeal is, accordingly dismissed.
15. Since, the trial court has also recommended
compensation of ₹2,00,000/- to be given by the Meghalaya State
Legal Services Authority to the survivor, a report to be submitted
by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, West Khasi
Hills, whether the said amount has been disbursed to her or not.
The said report to be submitted before this Court within six
weeks.
Page 13 of 14
2026:MLHC:483-DB
16. The Registry to forward forthwith a copy of this judgment
and order to the Secretary, DLSA, West Khasi Hills District,
Nongstoin, to enable the Secretary to submit the report.
17. Place the aforesaid appeal for recording compliance of
paragraph 15 on 1st July, 2026.
(W. Diengdoh) (Revati Mohite Dere)
Judge Chief Justice
Page 14 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by SYLVANA
LIZ KHARBHIH
Date: 2026.05.20 15:58:21 IST
