Facts
The Appellants (A-1 and A-2) were accused of forcibly taking the 16-year-old survivor to a secluded football ground on 27.08.2017 and committing gang rape
Source reference: pp. 3-4, 11Following an FIR by the survivor’s mother, the Special POCSO Court convicted A-1 and A-2 of various offenses under the IPC and POCSO Act, sentencing both to life imprisonment for gang rape (Section 376D IPC)
Source reference: pp. 2-3The Appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of material contradictions in the survivor's testimony, lack of medical corroboration, and misapplication of statutory presumptions
Source reference: pp. 4-6Notably, during the trial, the survivor identified A-1 but failed to identify A-2
Source reference: p. 14Issues
1. Whether the survivor’s testimony was reliable enough to sustain a conviction despite minor inconsistencies and lack of conclusive medical evidence
Source reference: p. 19, para. 262. Whether the conviction of A-2 could be sustained when the survivor failed to identify him during the trial
Source reference: p. 24, para. 363. Whether the conviction of A-1 for repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC was legally tenable when the allegation was raised for the first time during the trial
Source reference: p. 25, para. 39Law Applied
Court applied Section 376D and 366 of the IPC regarding gang rape and kidnapping
Source reference: pp. 2-3Sections 5(g) and 6 of the POCSO Act
Source reference: p. 10State of H.P. v. Sanjay Kumar alias Sunny that a conviction for sexual assault can be based on the sole testimony of the survivor if it inspires confidence
Source reference: p. 21, para. 29Joubansen Tripura v. State of Tripura regarding the prosecution's duty to prove "foundational facts" before invoking presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act
Source reference: p. 20, para. 27Section 36 of the POCSO Act, clarifying that while it protects child witnesses from exposure to the accused, it does not bar identification for evidentiary purposes
Source reference: p. 24, para. 37Reasoning
The Court found the survivor’s testimony regarding A-1 to be consistent and credible despite minor discrepancies, which are expected due to the lapse of time
Source reference: p. 23, para. 34It held that medical corroboration is not a prerequisite for conviction, especially since injuries on A-1's chest supported the survivor's version of a struggle
Source reference: p. 21, para. 28; p. 17, para. 22However, regarding A-2, the Court found the survivor's voluntary refusal to identify him in court created reasonable doubt that secondary witness testimonies (mother and brother) could not overcome
Source reference: p. 24, para. 37-38Regarding the charge of repeated rape (Section 376(2)(n) IPC), the Court ruled it violated principles of natural justice as A-1 was never charged with it during the investigation, depriving him of a fair opportunity to defend against that specific allegation
Source reference: p. 25, para. 39Holding
The Court partly allowed Crl.A. No. 10/2024, upholding A-1's conviction for gang rape (Section 376D IPC) and kidnapping but setting aside the convictions for repeated rape and lesser offenses (Sections 354, 376(2)(n) IPC, and 7/8 POCSO Act) that were subsumed by the major offense
A-1's life sentence was reduced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment considering his age and first-time offender status
Source reference: p. 26, para. 41The Court allowed Crl.A. No. 11/2024 in full, setting aside the conviction of A-2 and ordering his immediate release due to the survivor's failure to identify him
Source reference: pp. 25, 27Original Court PDF
KONTISHON MUKHIMvsTHE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in