ROCKYROY LYNGKHOI vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 2 ORS.

2026:MLHC:965
Serial No. 01
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG

Crl.A No. 27 of 2024

Date of CAV: 14.08.2026
Date of pronouncement: 01.09.2026

Rockyroy Lyngkhoi
.........Appellant
- versus -
1. State of Meghalaya duly represented by the Chief
Secretary, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.

2. The Officer in charge, Nongstoin Police Station, West Khasi
Hills District, Meghalaya, Shillong.

3. The Investigating Officer, Nongstoin Police Station, West
Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya, Shillong.
....Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice

Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. T. Dkhar, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mr. K. Khan, AAG with
Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl PP
Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl PP

i) Whether approved for No
reporting in Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication No
in press:



Page 1 of 13

2026:MLHC:965

JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated
27.03.2024 and order dated 09.04.2024, passed by the learned
Special Judge (POCSO), West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin in
Special (POCSO) Case No. 06 of 2020 convicting the appellant
for the offence punishable under Section 9(n) of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, for the
sake of brevity referred to as ‘POCSO Act’) and sentencing the
appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years under
Section 10 of the POCSO Act and, to pay fine of ₹ 20,000/- and
in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple
imprisonment of three months.

The Court also in exercise of its power under Section
357A(2) of the Cr.P.C. read with Rule 9(2) of the POCSO Rules,
2020, recommended compensation of ₹ 1 lakh to be paid to the
child-survivor by the Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority,
Shillong, as stipulated in Rule 9(5) POCSO Rules, 2020, for her
welfare. Interim compensation, paid if any, was to be adjusted
against the final compensation.
Page 2 of 13

2026:MLHC:965
2. The facts in brief are as under:
The appellant is the uncle of the survivor aged, 15 years.
According to the PW1 (mother of the survivor), on 23.09.2019,
her daughter (survivor) informed her elder daughter on
telephone i.e., that the appellant had sexually assaulted her,
pursuant to which her elder daughter informed her of the same.
PW1 (mother of the survivor) thereafter, informed the incident to
the family members, went to the village where her daughter was
residing with her cousin sister and her husband (appellant);
confronted the appellant; brought back her daughter to Shillong;
went to the hospital and thereafter, informed the incident to
Nongstoin Police Station, pursuant to which an FIR came to be
lodged. After registration of the FIR, the Police recorded the
statements of the witnesses both, under Sections 161 and 164
of the Cr.P.C., collected evidence and thereafter, filed charge-
sheet against the appellant for the alleged offence punishable
under Section 5(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act in the
Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO).

Page 3 of 13

2026:MLHC:965
3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed
to be tried. His defence appears to be that he is innocent.

4. The prosecution in support of its case, examined as many
as six witnesses as under:
PW1 – Mother of the survivor.
PW2 – Survivor.
PW3 – Elder sister of the survivor.
PW4 – Brother-in-law of the appellant.
PW5 – Dr. Abilities Mawlieh, Medical Practitioner.
PW6 – W.P./S.I. Fredis K. Marak, Investigating officer.

5. Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned Senior Counsel submitted
that the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(n) read with
Section 10 of the POCSO Act, cannot be sustained for want of
evidence and having regard to the inconsistencies in the
evidence of the witnesses that has come on record. Learned
Senior counsel submitted that the alleged act is also not
supported by medical evidence. According to Mr. Shangreiso,
learned Senior Counsel, the evidence of the witnesses does not
inspire confidence nor appears to be trustworthy to sustain the
Page 4 of 13

2026:MLHC:965
conviction of the appellant. He, thus submitted that the
appellant be acquitted of the offence for which he was convicted
and sentenced.

6. Mr. K. Khan, learned AAG supported the impugned
judgment and conviction, and submitted that no interference
was warranted in the same. He submitted that the evidence of
the survivor inspires confidence, is of a sterling quality and is
sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant. He
submitted that even otherwise, the evidence of the survivor is
duly corroborated by her mother (PW1) and sister (PW3) and that
there is no material on record to show as to why the appellant
would be falsely implicated by the witnesses, more particularly
when the survivor (PW2) was sent by her mother (PW1) for
pursuing her studies to the appellant’s house.

7. Having perused the evidence with the assistance of the
learned counsel for the respective parties and the record, no
infirmity can be found in the impugned judgment and order of
the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Khasi Hills District,
Page 5 of 13

2026:MLHC:965
Nongstoin, convicting and sentencing the appellant as stated
aforesaid in para 1 of the judgment for reasons to follow.

8. PW2, the survivor was 15 years at the relevant time and
was residing with her mother’s cousin and her husband
(appellant) in their village and was pursuing her education i.e.,
th
was studying in standard 9 at Myriaw village. According to PW2
(survivor), the incident took place on 23.09.2019 at 6 p.m. when
the appellant picked her up from tuition and told her that they
had to hurry back home as his wife (survivor’s aunt) was about
to reach home. She has stated that on reaching home, she was
sitting in the kitchen and that the appellant’s two minor children
were attending tuition classes in the neighbourhood; that the
appellant used to fetch his children from tuition, however, on
that particular day he did not fetch them; that the appellant
asked her if she wanted to know what to do if she has a boyfriend
to which, she replied, ‘no’, several times; that he kept repeating
the same again and again, and then called her to his bedroom.
When asked what happened in the bedroom of the appellant,
PW2 answered “when I went to his bedroom he asked me to lie
Page 6 of 13

2026:MLHC:965
down on his bed, he then opened my long pant and underwear,
he also opened his pant and undergarments and then he started
fondling my breast and then he committed penetrative sexual
assault on me by inserting his male organ in the private parts.
After committing the said act upon me, he told me not to tell
anyone regarding the said incident and also to act normally when
Meiheh returns home.” Thereafter, PW2 in her evidence has
deposed that the appellant helped her put on her clothes,
switched on the lights of the bedroom and called her to the
kitchen; that when she entered the kitchen, the appellant’s wife
was present and that they had dinner.

9. She has stated that although, she wanted to report the
incident to her aunt, she did not have the courage as the
appellant had warned her from doing so, and thereafter, on the
next day, after attending tuition, she went to her friend’s house,
requested her for a mobile phone and called her elder sister
(PW3) and narrated the entire incident committed by the
appellant on her. She has stated that thereafter, her sister (PW3)
informed her mother and her mother (PW1) on receiving the
Page 7 of 13

2026:MLHC:965
information alongwith other family members came to Myriaw
village and disclosed the incident to all the family members,
however, the appellant when confronted denied the allegations.
She has stated that pursuant thereto, she went with her mother
to Nongstoin Police Station and narrated the incident of sexual
assault to the Police, after which, she was taken to Nongstoin
Civil Hospital for medical examination, accompanied by her
mother.

10. PW2 also showed the bedroom where the appellant
committed the sexual assault on her, pursuant to which,
photographs were taken. She has further stated that at the
relevant time, she was 15 years of age and her date of birth was
08.04.2005. She produced her original birth certificate before
the Court.

11. Although, in the examination-in-chief, PW2 alleged
penetrative sexual assault, in her cross-examination, she has
stated that the appellant did not commit penetrative sexual
assault but laid on top of her.

Page 8 of 13

2026:MLHC:965
12. The evidence of PW2 is duly corroborated by her mother
(PW1) and her elder sister (PW3), to whom the disclosure was
made by the survivor. The evidence of PW3 (elder sister of the
survivor) is duly corroborated by the disclosure made by her
sister (PW2) to her that the appellant had done something wrong
in her private parts on 23.09.2019 and that she had informed
the same to her on the mobile. PW3 has stated that on receiving
the said information, she immediately informed her mother
(PW1), who was at her work place, pursuant to which her mother
returned home and thereafter, went to Myriaw village alongwith
the relatives; that when the family members inquired about the
allegation, the appellant did not respond; that thereafter, her
mother went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint.

13. Again, in the cross-examination of the said witness, it has
come that it is fact, that the appellant had not committed
penetrative sexual assault but just laid on top of the victim.

14. The aforesaid evidence is again, duly corroborated by
PW1(original complainant and mother of the survivor). PW1 has
deposed that on 23.09.2019, her daughter was studying in
Page 9 of 13

2026:MLHC:965
Myriaw village and staying with her cousin sister and husband
(appellant); when, she informed her elder daughter (PW3) about
the bad things done to her by the appellant; pursuant to which
PW3 informed the same to her; that on learning of the same, she
went to the Myriaw village alongwith her relatives where again,
her daughter (PW2) informed her about what the appellant had
done to her; that when she confronted the appellant, ‘ he pleaded
for forgiveness and stated that he has committed a mistake and
did not commit penetrative sexual assault on her daughter but
just laid on top of the survivor ’; that on returning to Shillong and
on learning the information from her daughter, she took her
daughter to the hospital for medical check-up after which, a FIR
was lodged. She has identified her signature in the FIR, which
was exhibited.

15. Again, in the cross-examination of the said witness, it has
come that the appellant did not commit penetrative sexual
assault on her daughter.

16. It thus, appears from the aforesaid evidence, in particular,
the cross-examination and as admitted by the survivor herself
Page 10 of 13

2026:MLHC:965
and the other witnesses that, there was no penetrative sexual
assault and that the appellant had laid on top of her, the learned
trial court convicted the appellant for a lesser offence, i.e.,
offence punishable under Section 9(n) read with Section 10 of
the POCSO Act with the charge under Section 5(n) read with
Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It may be noted that there is no
challenge to PW2’s (survivor’s) evidence that the appellant had
also fondled her breasts.

17. PW5, the doctor, who examined the survivor has deposed
that she recorded the history narrated by the survivor, i.e., on
23.09.2019 at 6 p.m., the appellant fetched her from tuition to
his house; that after reaching home, he told her that he wanted
to teach her about physical relation so that she would be aware
in the future; that he undressed her and started kissing her
private part and performed sexual act on her; that during the
incident, she felt unconscious and could not recollect anything;
that the appellant verbally threatened her not to disclose the
incident and that on the next day, she informed her relatives
about the incident.
Page 11 of 13

2026:MLHC:965
17. The evidence of the doctor further shows that on physical
examination, the survivor did not have any physical injury, nor
injury marks were detected on her body and the private parts.

18. In the cross-examination, the doctor has admitted that, if
there was forceful penetration, there would be signs of laceration
and bruises in the private area.

19. Thus, from the evidence on record as noted above, and
what has come in the cross-examination of the survivor and the
other witnesses, the learned Judge has rightly convicted the
appellant for the offence punishable under Section 9(n) of the
POCSO Act. Section 7 of the POCSO Act defines ‘sexual assault’
as under:
“ 7 . Sexual Assault.– Whoever, with sexual intent touches
the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the
child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person
or any other persons, or does any other act with sexual
intent which involves physical contact without penetration
is said to commit sexual assault. ”


20. Thus, having perused the evidence, no infirmity can be
found in the impugned judgment and order convicting and
sentencing the appellant as stated aforesaid.
Page 12 of 13

2026:MLHC:965

21. The appeal is, accordingly dismissed and as such,
disposed of.

22. Since, the trial court has also recommended
compensation of ₹ 1 lakh to be given by the Meghalaya State
Legal Services Authority to the child-survivor, a report to be
submitted by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority,
West Khasi Hills, Nongstoin, whether the said amount has been
disbursed to her or not. The said report to be submitted before
this Court within six weeks.

23. The Registry to forward forthwith a copy of this judgment
and order to the Secretary, DLSA, West Khasi Hills District,
Nongstoin, to enable the Secretary to submit the report.

24. Place the aforesaid appeal for recording compliance of
th
paragraph 22 on 13 October, 2026 .


( Revati Mohite Dere )
Chief Justice
Signature Not Verified
Page 13 of 13

Digitally signed by SYLVANA
LIZ KHARBHIH
Date: 2026.09.01 20:06:46 IST