Meghalaya HC upholds 10-year term in West Garo Hills child sexual assault case

The High Court of Meghalaya dismissed an appeal by a convicted sex offender on June 10, upholding a 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence for the sexual assault of an 11-year-old girl in West Garo Hills in 2019.

A bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W. Diengdoh found no merit in the appeal filed by Ezazul Ali, who had challenged his conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act before the Shillong court.

The case dates to April 1, 2019, when the girl went to a water pump near a mill in the area to bathe. Finding no electricity, she began heading home, when the appellant called her into his house under the pretext of retrieving an iron rod from an overhead rack. He lifted her up, pulled her clothes, and assaulted her. When she screamed, he covered her mouth, causing her to lose consciousness. On regaining consciousness, she was told to stay silent and offered Rs 2.

She returned home to find her clothes bloodied. She disclosed the assault to her mother, who raised the alarm with family members and visited the appellant's house — only to be told the injuries were likely from a fall. The family subsequently lodged an FIR at Phulbari Police Station, and the girl was taken for medical examination at Tikrikilla CHC.

The examining doctor found abrasions on the girl's neck and vagina, and concluded in her medical report that the victim "has been molested in her private part by a finger."

The trial court at the Special POCSO Court, West Garo Hills, convicted Ali and sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 30,000. A victim compensation of Rs 3 lakh was also awarded, to be disbursed through the Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority.

On appeal, Ali's counsel argued that the FIR contained material discrepancies compared to the complainant's court testimony, that the forensic report did not support the prosecution's case, and that the accused had been falsely implicated owing to a dispute between the families.

The High Court rejected each of these arguments. It noted that during cross-examination, the prosecutrix's account remained entirely unchallenged on the core facts of the assault. Crucially, admissions made during cross-examination themselves confirmed the appellant's presence in the house alone with the girl, the assault, and the subsequent offer of money to buy her silence. The court observed there was "nothing on record to even suggest" why the girl and her parents would fabricate the allegation, and that while inimical relations between the parties had been alleged, no evidence of why those relations soured was ever placed before the court.

The bench also noted that the victim's account was corroborated consistently by her mother, her father, and the medical examiner — and that the defence had not cross-examined the doctor on her core finding.

The court directed the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, West Garo Hills, to submit a compliance report within eight weeks confirming whether the Rs 3 lakh compensation has been paid to the survivor. The matter is listed for compliance on August 13, 2026.