01Facts
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
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)
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
pp. 4-6Notably, during the trial, the survivor identified A-1 but failed to identify A-2
p. 1402Issues
i.1. Whether the survivor’s testimony was reliable enough to sustain a conviction despite minor inconsistencies and lack of conclusive medical evidence
p. 19 · ¶ 26ii.2. Whether the conviction of A-2 could be sustained when the survivor failed to identify him during the trial
p. 24 · ¶ 36iii.3. 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
p. 25 · ¶ 3903Law Applied
Court applied Section 376D and 366 of the IPC regarding gang rape and kidnapping
pp. 2-3Sections 5(g) and 6 of the POCSO Act
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
p. 21 · ¶ 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
p. 20 · ¶ 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
p. 24 · ¶ 37Provisions in the judgment · 18 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 109Section 354Section 366Section 375Section 376Section 503Section 506
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 3Section 5Section 6Section 7Section 8Section 29Section 30Section 36
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 161Section 164Section 313
04Reasoning
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
p. 23 · ¶ 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
p. 21 · ¶ 28 · p. 17 · ¶ 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
p. 24 · ¶ 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
p. 25 · ¶ 3905Holding
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
pp. 25-26A-1's life sentence was reduced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment considering his age and first-time offender status
p. 26 · ¶ 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
p. 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
