Page 1 of 15

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

Crl.A. No. 39 of 2024

Date of CAV: 08.10.2026

Date of pronouncement: 29.10.2026

Millingstone Khardewsaw,

S/o Shri. Nolling Kharjahrin,

Village:Laitjynrai Rangblang,

District: South West Khasi Hills,

Meghalaya.

Presently lodge in District Jail, Nongpoh serving sentence.

...Appellant

- versus -

1. State of Meghalaya (represented by Chief Secretary of

Meghalaya.

2. The Investigating, Mawkyrwat P.S. Case No. 26(9) of 2016.

....Respondents

Coram:

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice

Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance:

For the Appellant : Mr. P. Yobin, Legal Aid Counsel

For the Respondent : Mr S. Sengupta, Addl PP

i) Whether approved for Yes

reporting in Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication Yes

in press:

Serial No. 01

Supplementary

List 2026:MLHC:1211-DB

Page 2 of 15

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice)

By this appeal, the appellant has impugned the judgment

and order dated 06.05.2021, passed by the learned Special

Judge (POCSO), South West Khasi Hills District, Mawkyrwat, in

POCSO Case No. 16 of 2016, convicting him for the offences

punishable under Sections 5(m)(n)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and

sentencing him, to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 24 years.

The court also in exercise of its power under Section 33(8)

of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Rule 7 of POCSO Rules, 2012

recommended compensation of ₹3 lakhs to be paid to the

survivor by the Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority,

Shillong. The compensation was awarded for rehabilitation of

the survivor and treatment for her mental health.

2. Factual matrix of the prosecution case in brief is as under.

It is the prosecution case, that the PW2 (survivor) aged 10

years was sexually assaulted by her stepfather , i.e., the

appellant on 04.09.2016, at their residence. When PW3 (mother

of the survivor) returned home she saw that PW2 (survivor) in 2026:MLHC:1211-DB

Page 3 of 15

an unconscious condition, pursuant to which she splashed

water on her face; on regaining consciousness, her daughter

(PW2) disclosed that the appellant had committed penetrative

sexual assault on her. PW3 (mother of the survivor) thereafter,

informed her brother (PW1), who had lodged an FIR with the

Mawkyrwat Police Station on 06.09.2016 pursuant to which, the

appellant was arrested and investigation commenced.

The Police during the course of investigation, recorded the

statements of witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C., collected

medical documents from the doctor, took photographs of the

spot where the incident took place and also produced the

appellant before the Magistrate (PW7), who recorded the

confession of the appellant. After investigation, charge-sheet

was filed in the said case in the Court of the learned Special

Judge (POCSO), South West Khasi Hills, Mawkyrwat.

The prosecution in support of its case examined as many

as eight witnesses. The said witnesses are as under:

PW1 – Uncle of the survivor.

PW2 – Survivor 2026:MLHC:1211-DB

Page 4 of 15

PW3 – Mother of the survivor.

PW4 – Dr. Badira Mawlong, Senior Medical and Health Officer.

PW5 – Smti. I. Warlarpih, Staff Nurse.

PW6 – Dr. G. Wahlang, Gynaecologist Specialist.

PW7 – Mr. A. Nongbri, Magistrate.

PW8 – WPSI J.M. Kurbah, Investigating Officer.

3. The defence of the appellant was contradictory. While the

tenor of the cross-examination of the witnesses points to the

presence of the appellant, in the 313 statement, the appellant

has denied the allegations.

4. The learned trial Judge after hearing the parties, was

pleased to convict and sentence the appellant as stated aforesaid

in paragraph 1. Hence, this appeal.

5. Mr. P. Yobin, appointed Legal Aid Counsel appearing for

the appellant submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove

its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence of the

witnesses does not transpire confidence and as such, the

appellant be acquitted of the offences for which he was

convicted. 2026:MLHC:1211-DB

Page 5 of 15

6. Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl. PP s upported the

judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated

06.05.2021 and submitted that no interference is warranted in

the same. He submitted that the evidence of the survivor (PW2)

inspires confidence and that the said evidence is duly

corroborated by her mother (PW3) and the doctor (PW4). He

further submitted that the prosecution had also proved the

confession made by the appellant to PW7 (Magistrate).

7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties

and having perused the evidence with the assistance of both the

learned counsel, we are only of the opinion that no interference

is warranted in the said impugned judgment and order of

conviction and sentence, for reasons to follow.

8. PW2 (survivor) was over 10 years old at the time of the

incident and about 11 years of age at the time of her deposition.

PW2 (survivor) has deposed that the appellant was her

stepfather and that the incident took place on a Sunday, when

her mother (PW3) had gone out in search for money and she was

alone at home with the appellant. She has deposed that she was 2026:MLHC:1211-DB

Page 6 of 15

planning to take a bath before going to the Church; that when

she took out fresh clothes for bathing and was about to go for a

bath, the appellant grabbed her, carried her to the bed, laid her

on the bed; that the appellant opened her pant; that he also

opened his pant up to his thigh and committed penetrative

sexual assault on her; that she cried in pain but the appellant

gagged her mouth with a cloth; that after completing the act, he

threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone or he would

kill her; and thereafter, he tied both her hands from behind on

a wooden pole inside the house and left the house. PW2

(survivor) has further deposed that after the incident, her mother

came home and untied her; that she narrated the incident to her

mother and then to her relatives as well as the doctor with

respect to what had happened to her.

9. It is pertinent to note that there is no absolutely cross-

examination with respect to the evidence deposed to by PW2 as

stated aforesaid. Infact, the only cross-examination is as under:

“I felt pain on my private part when the accused person

raped me. Whatever I have narrated in Court it is a fact.”

2026:MLHC:1211-DB

Page 7 of 15

10. Thus, the appellant has in his cross-examination accepted

that he had sexually assaulted PW2 survivor and whatever was

narrated by her in Court was the fact.

11. The aforesaid evidence is duly corroborated by PW3

(mother of the survivor). PW3 has in her evidence deposed that

the survivor was her biological daughter and that the appellant

was her second husband and as such, a stepfather of her

daughter. She has deposed that the incident took place on the

Sunday morning when she had gone out to collect her dues from

a person, who had given her work and as such, had left her

daughter alongwith the appellant at home. She has stated that

she had asked them to get ready to go to Church; that when she

returned home at around 12 noon, she found her daughter

unconscious, that both her hands were tied behind her back on

a wooden post outside the house; that there was blood on her

mouth and her legs; that she untied the hands of her daughter

and splashed water on her face; that when her daughter

regained consciousness, she carried her daughter to her sister’s

house, where her daughter disclosed that the appellant had

committed penetrative sexual assault on her. She has stated 2026:MLHC:1211-DB

Page 8 of 15

that on checking the private part of her daughter, she saw that

her daughter was bleeding. She has further deposed that she

stayed that night with her daughter (PW2) at her sister’s house

and thereafter, sought financial help on the next day, i.e., on

Monday and after collecting the amount, she took her daughter

to Mawkyrwat CHC for medical treatment. She has stated that

when she reached the Mawkyrwat CHC, it was already night

time and that that she informed the doctor that her daughter

was unable to urinate and had stomach pain; that when the

doctor inquired from her daughter about the pain, her daughter

narrated that she was sexually assaulted by the appellant.

12. PW3 has further deposed that the doctor from Mawkyrwat

CHC told her to take her daughter to Shillong for proper

treatment on the same night . However, due to financial

constraint she requested the doctor to keep her daughter for one

night until her relatives could come; that on the following day,

she transferred her daughter to Ganesh Das Hospital, Shillong

in the Ambulance of Mawkyrwat CHC and thereafter, her

daughter was under medical treatment for about one week in

the said hospital. 2026:MLHC:1211-DB

Page 9 of 15

13. PW3 has further deposed that when her daughter (PW2)

was in the hospital, she had no proper knowledge as to with

whom to lodge an FIR. However, she learnt on her return from

Shillong that the appellant had already been arrested.

14. Again, there is no cross-examination of the said witness

about the disclosure made by the PW2 (survivor) to her (PW3) or

to the doctor (PW4) with respect to sexual assault by the

appellant on PW2. Infact, in the cross-examination of PW3 it has

come “the accused person tied my minor victim daughter in a pole

that supports the house near the bed.” Thus, there is nothing

substantial that has come in the cross-examination of PW3 to

disbelieve her testimony or much less any suggestion as to why

she would falsely implicate the appellant.

15. The aforesaid evidence is again, duly corroborated by the

evidence of PW4, Dr. Badira Mawlong. PW4, in his evidence has

stated that he was working in Ganesh Hospital, Shillong as a

Senior Medical and Health Officer at the relevant time; that on

06.09.2016, the survivor alongwith her mother and uncle

reached Ganesh Das Hospital; that before conducting the 2026:MLHC:1211-DB

Page 10 of 15

medical examination, he recorded the brief history or the

survivor and also her mother, and took the mother’s consent for

medical examination of the survivor. PW4, Dr. Badira Mawlong

has further deposed that the survivor disclosed to him that on

06.09.2016 when her mother was not at home at about 8 to 8.30

a.m., the appellant asked her to lie down on the bed; took out

her underwear and forcefully had sexual contact with her, and

after the incident, he threatened her not to disclose the same.

PW4 has further deposed that the mother of the survivor also

disclosed to him that when she reached home, she found her

daughter complaining of pain in the abdomen and bleeding in

the private part; and that the mother had taken the survivor to

Mawkyrwat CHC and had brought her from the said Mawkyrwat

CHC to Ganesh Das Hospital.

16. PW4 has further deposed that the mother of the survivor

had also disclosed to him that the Mawkyrwat Police had been

informed of the incident. PW4 has also deposed that local

examination of the survivor could not be done as the survivor

was crying and refused to be examined due to pain, pursuant to

which she was referred to a Gynaecologist for further 2026:MLHC:1211-DB

Page 11 of 15

examination. However, the survivor refused to be examined due

to pain. PW4 has further deposed that one of the doctors advised

that the examination be done in the operation theatre and

accordingly, on 07.09.2016, the genital part of the survivor was

examined in the operation theatre under sedation. The

examination reveals that the labia were inflamed and there was

a hymenal tear at 5 O’clock position. PW4 has further deposed

that the survivor was admitted at the Ganesh Das Hospital and

was discharged only on 15.09.2016. PW4 has produced all the

medical documents in support of his deposition.

17. It is pertinent to note, that since this witness was not

cross-examined, on an application made by the learned counsel

for the appellant, we had remitted the matter back vide order

dated 30.06.2026, to enable the defence to cross examine PW4.

Pursuant thereto, PW4 was cross-examined and the cross-

examination papers have been placed before this Court.

18. Having perused the cross-examination of PW4, Dr. Badira

Mawlong, we find that there is nothing in the cross-examination 2026:MLHC:1211-DB

Page 12 of 15

to disbelieve his testimony with respect to the fact, that he found

that the PW2 (survivor) was sexually assaulted.

19. The aforesaid evidence is also corroborated by PW6, Dr.

G. Wahlang, Gynaecologist Specialist, who had also examined

the survivor in the operation theatre of Ganesh Das Hospital

under sedation (Anaesthesia). He has deposed that on medical

examination of the private part of the survivor, he found both,

labia majora and labia minora inflamed and that there was a

hymeneal tear at 5 O’clock position.

20. Thus, from a perusal of the evidence of PW2 (survivor), it

appears that the evidence of the survivor is reliable, trustworthy

and credible. Infact, there is nothing on record in the cross-

examination to disbelieve the testimony of PW2 (survivor) with

respect to sexual assault on her. Infact, there is no challenge

with respect to what is deposed to by PW2 vis-à-vis sexual

assault on her by the appellant. The aforesaid evidence, by itself,

is sufficient to convict the appellant. However, in the facts, the

aforesaid evidence is duly corroborated by the evidence of her

mother (PW3) and the doctors, i.e., PW4 - Dr. Badira Mawlong 2026:MLHC:1211-DB

Page 13 of 15

and PW6 - Dr. G. Wahlang. The medical evidence clearly

establishes that the survivor was sexually assaulted.

21. Although, the aforesaid evidence is sufficient in itself to

convict the appellant, it is pertinent to note that in addition to

the aforesaid, there is confession of the appellant recorded under

Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,

South West Khasi Hills, Mawkyrwat.

22. In order to prove the confession, the prosecution had

examined Shri. A. Nongbri, learned First Class Magistrate,

South West Khasi Hills, Mawkyrwat, who recorded the

statement of the appellant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The

confession was exhibited as Exhibit P-VIII. In the confession it

is stated that the appellant had admitted having sexually

assaulted his stepdaughter, i.e., PW2 (survivor).

23. Again, in the cross-examination, the appellant has not

denied making the confession.

24. Considering the aforesaid evidence on record, the fact that

the appellant had sexually assaulted his stepdaughter, aged 10 2026:MLHC:1211-DB

Page 14 of 15

years and having regard the evidence from record, no infirmity

can be found in the impugned judgment and order of conviction

and sentence. The appellant has completely breached the

relationship of trust between him and his stepdaughter, and had

taken undue advantage of his stepdaughter by sexually

assaulting her when his wife was not at home. Having regard to

the aforesaid, no interference is warranted in the impugned

judgment and order of conviction and sentence and as such, the

appeal is dismissed.

25. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

26. Since, the trial court has also recommended

compensation of ₹3 lakhs to be given by the Meghalaya State

Legal Services Authority to the survivor, a report to be submitted

by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, South West

Khasi Hills, whether the said amount has been disbursed to her

or not. The said report to be submitted before this Court within

six weeks.

27. The Registry to forward forthwith a copy of this judgment

and order to the Secretary, DLSA, South West Khasi Hills 2026:MLHC:1211-DB

Page 15 of 15

District, Mawkyrwat, to enable the Secretary to submit the

report.

28. Place the aforesaid appeal for recording compliance of

paragraph 25 on 21

st

December, 2026.

(W. Diengdoh) (Revati Mohite Dere)

Judge Chief Justice

2026:MLHC:1211-DB