Meghalaya HC upholds POCSO conviction of man who raped 9-year-old, rejects tutoring claim

The High Court of Meghalaya has dismissed an appeal filed by Yowan O Lamare against his conviction for raping a 9-year-old girl, ruling that the prosecution's evidence was credible and corroborated despite defence arguments that the child witness had been "tutored" by her mother.

A division bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W Diengdoh upheld the judgment of the Special Judge (POCSO), East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat, who had sentenced Lamare to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Sections 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act, along with a fine of Rs 10,000.

According to the prosecution, the incident took place on the night of June 27, 2019, in Lumshnong village, when the appellant entered the survivor's house while she was asleep, carried her to the floor of the TV room and sexually assaulted her. Her mother walked in on the act after seeing off a neighbour's daughter who had come over to watch television, and screamed, prompting Lamare to flee.

Counsel for the appellant, G.C. Marboh, argued that the prosecution had failed to prove the survivor's age since her original birth certificate was never produced, and contended that the testimony of witnesses was unreliable. She pointed to a key admission in the survivor's cross-examination that her mother had told her "what to say" before the magistrate, suggesting coaching.

The bench rejected this argument outright, noting that a closer reading of the cross-examination showed the mother had only instructed the child to tell the truth about what happened. "The same cannot be construed as tutoring," the court observed.

The judgment noted that the survivor's account of the assault went entirely unchallenged in cross-examination and was corroborated on multiple fronts. Her mother testified as an eyewitness to the act, describing how she found the appellant on top of her daughter with both their clothes pulled down, and how the appellant and his mother later visited their house seeking forgiveness. A neighbour's daughter, who had been watching television at the house earlier that evening, confirmed Lamare's presence on the premises around the time of the incident.

Medical evidence from the examining doctor also supported the prosecution's case, recording a torn hymen, vaginal bleeding and swelling consistent with recent sexual intercourse, with the injuries attributed to sexual assault.

The court also addressed a procedural lapse by the trial judge, who had failed to conduct the mandatory preliminary examination of a 10-year-old witness to assess her competence to testify and her understanding of the duty to tell the truth, as required under Section 118 of the Evidence Act and Section 4 of the Oaths Act. While criticising this omission, the bench said it had independently scrutinised her testimony and found it trustworthy, rendering the lapse non-fatal to the prosecution's case.

On the defence of alibi, the court found that none of the three witnesses produced by the appellant supported his claim of having been elsewhere at the time of the offence — with one defence witness in fact corroborating the survivor's mother's account that the appellant and his family had sought forgiveness after the incident.

The bench concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the case law cited by the defence, while not in dispute on principle, was distinguishable on facts. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.

The court additionally directed the Secretary, Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority, to file a report within six weeks on whether the Rs 4 lakh compensation ordered for the survivor under the Meghalaya Victim Scheme, 2022, has been disbursed. The matter has been listed for compliance on July 23, 2026.