Meghalaya HC upholds 15-year sentence against father who sexually assaulted teenage daughter

The High Court of Meghalaya has dismissed the appeal of a man convicted of raping his own daughter, affirming a 15-year rigorous imprisonment sentence handed down by a special POCSO court in 2023.

The bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W. Diengdoh, which pronounced the judgment on 20 May 2026, found no reason to interfere with the conviction of Shanborlang Thabah under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — one of its most serious provisions, covering aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

The survivor was between 14 and 15 years of age when the assaults took place at the family's residence in West Khasi Hills. Her father carried out the abuse on multiple occasions, always when her mother was away from home.

The girl initially confided in her elder cousin sister, who then told her own mother, who in turn alerted the survivor's uncle — identified in court as PW1 — along with other family members. It was PW1 who filed the complaint with the Mairang Police Station, leading to the registration of an FIR. A charge sheet was subsequently filed before the Special POCSO Judge at Nongstoin.

The survivor's testimony was at the centre of the entire case. She described, in detail, how the first incident occurred at night when her siblings were asleep and her mother was absent. The accused, she said, entered her bedroom and touched her inappropriately. The abuse escalated over time, occurring "three to four times a week," before he eventually committed penetrative sexual assault on two separate occasions.

The survivor also told the court that her father had explicitly warned her not to tell her mother.

The defence attempted to exploit what it called a discrepancy between her court testimony and her earlier statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC before a Magistrate. The appellant's lawyer argued that in the 164 statement, the survivor had only referred to an attempt at sexual assault — not a completed act — and that her court testimony amounted to a false escalation.

The court rejected this argument outright. During cross-examination, the survivor herself clarified the matter: "It is a fact that I have stated in my statement under Section 164 CrPC that the accused initially attempted to commit penetrative sexual assault upon me and was subsequently successful."

The bench noted pointedly that the defence had not challenged the survivor's answers to the two most critical questions put to her in examination-in-chief, and that no suggestion had been offered to her as to why she would falsely implicate her own father.

The medical officer attached to Tirot Singh Memorial Hospital, Mairang, who examined the survivor, found physical indicators consistent with sexual assault. The survivor had also told the doctor that the appellant had attempted to buy her silence by offering her money, which she refused.

Multiple family members and relatives who appeared as witnesses testified that the survivor had directly disclosed the abuse to them. None of their accounts was successfully challenged in cross-examination.

The bench concluded that the prosecution had established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. On the question of delayed reporting — often raised in such cases — the court held that any delay must be assessed in light of the survivor's young age and the fact that the perpetrator was her own father, a person she feared and depended upon.

The court observed that the appellant had "breached all norms of morality and decency" and had violated the fiduciary trust his daughter had placed in him.

The original sentence — 15 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 50,000, with six months' additional simple imprisonment in default — stands.

The trial court had earlier recommended a compensation of Rs 2 lakh to the survivor through the Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority. The High Court directed the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, West Khasi Hills, to submit a report within six weeks confirming whether the amount has actually been paid. The matter is listed for compliance on 1 July 2026.