Meghalaya HC sets aside POCSO conviction over accused identity doubts

The Meghalaya High Court has set aside the conviction of a man sentenced to 10 years in prison under the POCSO Act, holding that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he was the person who sexually assaulted the survivor.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W. Diengdoh passed the order on September 16, 2026, allowing an appeal filed by Emanuel Marwein against his conviction by the Special Judge (POCSO), West Khasi Hills, Nongstoin. The trial court had convicted him under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 of the IPC and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 25,000 under the POCSO Act, along with two years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 of the IPC.

The case originated from a complaint lodged at Nongstoin police station in June 2017 after village headman Gentle Roy Marwein and secretary Golonsar Marwein submitted a complaint concerning a letter allegedly written by the survivor, who was around 13 years old at the time. The letter alleged that she had been sexually assaulted by an uncle. An FIR was subsequently registered against Marwein under the POCSO Act and the IPC.

The High Court, however, found significant discrepancies concerning the identity of the alleged perpetrator.

The survivor told the court that she had been at her grandmother’s sister’s house in 2017 when Marwein allegedly dragged her into a bedroom and sexually assaulted her. She said the incident occurred when she was 11 and that she later wrote a letter to her grandmother before leaving for Tamil Nadu. She identified Marwein in court.

However, the medical evidence raised a different issue. The doctor who examined the survivor recorded that she had identified the alleged assailant only as “Mama”. According to the doctor’s testimony, relatives later identified the person referred to as “Mama” as Phring Monday Marwein — a different person from the appellant.

The High Court noted a “clear dichotomy” between the survivor’s evidence and the medical record regarding the accused’s name. The court observed that although both individuals were described as uncles, “the names are different”.

The court also examined the letter that formed the basis of the prosecution’s account. It found that the letter did not name the alleged perpetrator and referred to him only as the “eldest uncle”.

Another discrepancy concerned the dates. The letter was dated June 28, 2017, while the FIR was lodged on June 8, 2017. The High Court said this discrepancy could not be reconciled with the prosecution’s claim that the FIR was registered on the basis of the letter.

“The prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt” that Marwein was the person who committed the sexual assault, the bench held.

The court accordingly quashed and set aside the 2022 judgment of conviction and sentence. It also directed that Marwein be released forthwith if he was not required in any other case, and ordered that any fine deposited be refunded.