Meghalaya HC upholds 14-year term in POCSO case over assault of 9-year-old

The High Court of Meghalaya has dismissed the appeal of a man convicted of sexually assaulting a nine-year-old girl, affirming his 14-year rigorous imprisonment sentence handed down by a lower court three years ago.

The Division Bench, which pronounced its judgment on May 22, 2026, found no grounds to interfere with the conviction under Sections 5(m)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The incident dates to 23 June 2018, when the accused — a neighbour of the child — allegedly gagged her, carried her into his home and assaulted her. The girl, then studying in Class III, later told her mother what had happened. Her father filed an FIR the following morning at Phulbari Police Station.

The defence argued that the survivor's testimony was unreliable and that medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case. The court rejected both contentions outright.

Central to the judgment was the survivor's own account, which the court found credible and consistent. During cross-examination, the survivor confirmed the appellant had not covered his face, that she had not been coached by her mother, and that there was no prior enmity between the families — details the court noted actually reinforced the prosecution's case rather than weakening it.

Medical testimony proved equally damaging to the defence. One doctor confirmed she was "99 per cent" certain that the swelling found on the child was caused by sexual assault, and that the injury resulted from forceful penetration. A second doctor, who examined the child on June 24, 2018, found redness around the vaginal orifice and confirmed the hymen was not intact.

The court noted that the survivor visibly broke down on seeing the accused in court, clinging to her mother out of fear — a reaction the presiding judge had recorded during trial.

The accused also inadvertently undermined his own defence. When questioned about the survivor's age, he disputed she was nine, suggesting she was between 10 and 12 years old in 2018 — an answer the court said amounted to an admission that she was a minor at the time of the offence.

A birth certificate placed on record confirmed she was nine years old, and no witness meaningfully challenged it during cross-examination.

The appeal was dismissed as "devoid of merit." The original sentence — 14 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000, with three months' additional imprisonment in default of payment — remains in force.