MILLINGSTONE KHARDEWSAW vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA

2026:MLHC:1211-DB
Serial No. 01
Supplementary
List
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:






Page 1 of 15

2026:MLHC:1211-DB
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


Page 2 of 15

2026:MLHC:1211-DB
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


Page 3 of 15

2026:MLHC:1211-DB
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.


Page 4 of 15

2026:MLHC:1211-DB

6. Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl. PP supported 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


Page 5 of 15

2026:MLHC:1211-DB
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.”



Page 6 of 15

2026:MLHC:1211-DB
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


Page 7 of 15

2026:MLHC:1211-DB
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.


Page 8 of 15

2026:MLHC:1211-DB

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


Page 9 of 15

2026:MLHC:1211-DB
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


Page 10 of 15

2026:MLHC:1211-DB
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


Page 11 of 15

2026:MLHC:1211-DB
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


Page 12 of 15

2026:MLHC:1211-DB
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


Page 13 of 15

2026:MLHC:1211-DB
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


Page 14 of 15

2026:MLHC:1211-DB
District, Mawkyrwat, to enable the Secretary to submit the
report.

28. Place the aforesaid appeal for recording compliance of
st
paragraph 25 on 21 December, 2026 .




(W. Diengdoh) (Revati Mohite Dere)
Judge Chief Justice



Page 15 of 15

SYLVANA LIZ KHARBHIH
Digitally signed by:
Signed On: 29-10-2026 17:44:57 IST
Verified