01Facts
The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge (POCSO), South West Khasi Hills, of offences under Sections 5(m)(n) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for sexually assaulting his 10-year-old stepdaughter, and sentenced to 24 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
p. 2The trial court also recommended ₹3 lakh in compensation for the survivor under Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act read with Rule 7 of the POCSO Rules, 2012.
p. 2The appellant appealed, challenging the conviction and sentence.
pp. 4–5The High Court considered the survivor’s testimony, supporting evidence from her mother and doctors, and the appellant’s confession recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
pp. 6–1402Issues
i.1. Whether the evidence on record proved the appellant’s guilt under Sections 5(m)(n) and 6 of the POCSO Act and warranted upholding the conviction and sentence.
pp. 5, 12–14ii.2. Whether any interference with the trial court’s order was warranted in the appeal.
p. 5, 14iii.3. Whether the court should require confirmation that the recommended compensation had been disbursed to the survivor.
p. 1403Law Applied
The court considered the appellant’s conviction under Sections 5(m)(n) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, concerning aggravated penetrative sexual assault and its punishment.
p. 2, 14It assessed the survivor’s testimony alongside corroborative evidence, including the medical evidence and the appellant’s confession recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
pp. 6–14For compensation, it referred to Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act read with Rule 7 of the POCSO Rules, 2012.
p. 2, 14Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 5Section 6Section 33
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 164
04Reasoning
The High Court found the survivor’s account of the assault credible and noted that the defence did not materially challenge it in cross-examination.
pp. 6–7, 12Her mother’s evidence supported the account, and the doctors’ evidence described inflammation and a hymenal tear consistent with the reported assault.
pp. 7–12The court also relied on the appellant’s Section 164 CrPC confession, which he did not deny making.
pp. 13–14Taken together, this evidence left no basis to disturb the conviction or sentence.
p. 1405Holding
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and 24-year sentence.
p. 14It directed the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, South West Khasi Hills, to report within six weeks whether the ₹3 lakh compensation had been disbursed, and directed the Registry to forward the judgment to the Secretary; the matter was listed for compliance on 21 December 2026.
pp. 14–15Original Court PDF
MILLINGSTONE KHARDEWSAWvsSTATE OF MEGHALAYA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
