Meghalaya HC Upholds Father’s POCSO Conviction For Repeatedly Assaulting Minor Daughter, Cuts Life Sentence To 25 Years

The appellant was charged with aggravated penetrative sexual assault of his minor daughter, allegedly committed repeatedly over approximately four years, with the latest incident in November 2018.

The survivor’s mother lodged the FIR on 27 January 2019; the survivor was then about 13 years old.

The Trial Court framed a charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, recorded the prosecution evidence despite the appellant’s plea of guilty, and convicted him under Sections 5(l)(m) and 5(n), sentencing him under Section 6 to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000

On appeal, the appellant challenged the charge, the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence, and the sentence, including its compatibility with Article 20(1) of the Constitution

Under Sections 222 and 464 of the CrPC, omission or defect in a charge does not automatically invalidate a conviction; the court must assess whether the accused understood the essential case and whether the defect caused a failure of justice.

A survivor’s credible and reliable testimony can sustain a conviction without corroboration; corroborative evidence may be sought where the court has reason to doubt that testimony.

The court may assess the survivor’s age from reliable documentary evidence and apply the relevant aggravated-offence provisions of the POCSO Act.

Sentencing must reflect the gravity of the offence while taking account of relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances; a constitutional court may substitute a fixed-term sentence for life imprisonment, provided the term is not below the statutory minimum applicable under Section 433-A of the CrPC.

The Court held that the charge discrepancy did not, by itself, invalidate the conviction: applying the principles in Pynchem alangaki Bareh v. State of Meghalaya and the cited authorities, it found no basis to conclude that the defect had caused a failure of justice.

It accepted the survivor’s account of repeated assaults, noting that the appellant had not materially challenged or contradicted her evidence in cross-examination; it also relied on the medical evidence of a ruptured hymen and the birth certificate establishing her age.

The Court therefore upheld the conviction.

On sentence, it considered the pre-amendment offence and the appellant’s personal circumstances, but also the seriousness of the repeated abuse by a father against his daughter; it concluded that a fixed term of 25 years’ rigorous imprisonment was appropriate.

The conviction was upheld, while the life sentence was replaced with 25 years’ rigorous imprisonment; the fine of ₹10,000 and the default sentence of three months’ rigorous imprisonment were maintained.