Meghalaya HC upholds 20-year term for rape of 15-year-old who became pregnant

The High Court of Meghalaya dismissed an appeal filed by a man convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl from his own village, affirming a 20-year rigorous imprisonment sentence handed down by a lower court.

The judgment, pronounced on May 20, 2026 by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W. Diengdoh, rejected every argument put forward by the defence and upheld the conviction under Sections 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The incident occurred on June 14, 2021, during a birthday celebration at the survivor's home in a village in East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya. The accused, Dresster Kurbah, had been invited to the gathering as he belonged to the same clan as the girl's father and lived in the same village.

According to the survivor's testimony, Kurbah — who was helping with cooking that evening — asked her to meet him near a path close to the house between 6 and 7 pm. When she tried to leave, he demanded a sexual relationship, which she refused, telling him she was a 15-year-old schoolgirl. He then pinned her to the ground and raped her, after which he warned her not to tell anyone.

She did not report the assault. The family only discovered what had happened roughly two months later, when the girl missed her menstrual cycle. Her mother bought a pregnancy test kit, which came back positive.

When the mother confronted Kurbah, he arrived at the family's home with his father and brother-in-law. There, he acknowledged that the child in the womb was his but said he could not take responsibility — because he already had a girlfriend. He later told the survivor's family that the incident had happened "mistakenly" and that he had a wife and had been in a relationship for about a year and a half.

That admission triggered the FIR, lodged on November2, 2021 at Mawlai Police Station. Kurbah was arrested the same day. The survivor, who had been studying in Class IX at the time of the assault, subsequently dropped out of school for financial reasons and gave birth to a male child on 8 August 2022.

The prosecution examined four witnesses: the survivor (PW1), her mother (PW2), examining doctor Evangeline Kharkongor (PW3), and the investigating officer (PW4).

The medical officer's testimony proved decisive. She told the court that, according to the survivor, Kurbah "asked her to meet him at around 6:00 pm near a forest situated nearby her house... When she was about to leave, the accused asked her for a sexual relationship but she refused first. Then he forcefully held her and undressed her." The doctor confirmed the survivor was four to five months pregnant at the time of examination, consistent with the timeline of the assault. Nothing in cross-examination contradicted her findings.

The defence argued the relationship was consensual and that the prosecution had failed to prove the survivor was a minor. The court dismissed both claims. The survivor's birth certificate — establishing she was born on 23 March 2006 and was therefore 15 at the time — was produced and exhibited. It was never challenged by the defence.

The survivor herself categorically denied in cross-examination that she would have consented to any relationship with Kurbah, even had she been an adult. She also disclosed that, although a proposal had once come from his side, it had been called off before the incident occurred.

The Special POCSO Court had sentenced Kurbah to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment with a Rs 10,000 fine under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and three years of simple imprisonment with a Rs 5,000 fine under Section 8, with both sentences to run concurrently. The High Court found no grounds to interfere.

In a notable addition, the bench directed the District Legal Services Authority and the District Child Protection Officer of East Khasi Hills to verify whether the survivor had received any compensation or government benefits, and whether she wished to continue her education or pursue vocational training. If not, the authorities were instructed to ensure that all applicable benefits under the POCSO Act were extended to both the survivor and her child at the earliest opportunity.

A compliance report is to be submitted to the court within eight weeks.