Case title:
King Victor Ch. Marak Vs. State of Meghalaya
Date of Order:
8 June, 2023
Bench:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
SUBJECT
- On June 29, 2022, a request for review of a conviction was made, and on July 4, 2022, the request was granted. A trial resulted in a conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Penal Code, 1860. He was given a sentence of 10 years in solitary confinement and a punishment of Rs. 40,000, with an additional six months of simple jail for failing to pay the fine.
- Based on the medical examination report of the survivor, the Meghalaya High Court came to the conclusion that the appellant had raped a young girl. The appellant had violated Section 376(2) of the Penal Code, which is punishable by Section 6 of the Act of POCSO 2012.
- The HC supported the trial court fining the appellant Rs. 40,000 as compensation for her suffering, and the decision of additional jail time upon default was upheld .
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – States that the a strict sentence of up to 20 years in jail, with the possibility of a life sentence, and fines are the penalties for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. If a fine is issued, it must be fair and reasonable, covering both the cost of treatment and the cost of medical treatment.
- Section 376(2) of the Penal Code, 1860- States that Rape occurs when a woman is violated by a person in a position of dominance or control, such as a parent, relative, trusted authority, or someone in a position of power. If someone commits rape under these conditions, they risk harsh punishment, including up to ten years in prison, at least five years, and a fine.
OVERVIEW
- The appeal challenges a conviction and order from June 29, 2022, involving a child under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Penal Code, 1860.
- The appellant asserts that the survivor did not visit the appellant’s home during the alleged incident, and he or she denies any allegations of rape or severe sexual abuse. A border conflict is what inspired the allegations from the survivor’s family. On November 8, 2014, the first information report was filed, and the survivor’s mother and father provided adequate justifications.
- The mother of the survivor left her two kids with her husband and went to the market. The mother returned home to find her kids on November 6, 2014. The mother examined the survivor’s privates after she complained of having trouble urinating and discovered swelling, soreness, and maybe semen around her vagina. The mother said that the appellant had committed “khasia” (“dirty things” or rape”) against her.
- In order to inform the survivor’s mother, the mother spoke to her husband, who was working at Meghalaya Police in Mendipathar. The mother asked for medical attention but made no accusations. A probable sexual assault was discovered during the examination at the Dalu primary health centre, when the mother accompanied the survivor. A hospital in Tura was recommended for the survivor.
- After filing a FIR, the investigating officer verified the survivor’s statement pursuant to Section 164 of the Code and documented it. The victim’s deposition echoed earlier testimony. Although the prosecution called the mother and father, there was no mention of any specific family boundary problems.
- When the victim was evaluated at a public hospital in Tura, she complained of pain and discomfort in her intimate areas. On November 7, 2014, she was transported to Dalu PHC with the help of her parents. The Tura District Maternity and Child Hospital was recommended to the woman after the medical examiner discovered sexual abuse. Her labia majora were swollen, her hymen was partially ripped, and there was discomfort in the vagina. The survivor’s pants was also turned over to the authorities, along with vaginal swabs.
- The medical examiner reiterated findings from the FSL report and asserted that the survivor had just experienced a sexual assault. The FSL report did not offer convincing evidence because no clothing or undergarments were sent for forensic analysis; only biological samples were. On the vaginal wall, a small amount of blood was discovered, but not enough for analysis. The vaginal swabs yielded no evidence of semen.
- The defense summoned three witnesses, including the appellant’s mother, brother, and maternal cousin sister. The mother fabricated a story about the survivor not visiting her home and suggested her son was falsely accused. However, her property description showed three different lots, with the mother, father, and younger brother occupying a portion and the other two being occupied by relatives and children.
- The trial court analyzed the evidence, including statements from the survivor and her mother, against the appellant’s denial of the charge. The court found that it was natural for a person to indicate that they were not at the place of occurrence or the survivor had not come to their residence on the relevant date.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The survivor was suspected of sexual assault and referred to a hospital in Tura. Relatives forced her mother to undergo a second examination at Dalu PHC, and her mother’s relatives threatened her if complaints were made. The survivor’s father made the FIR in Tura.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- On November 6, 2014, the appellant did not dispute either the survivor's or his attendance at the stated site. He insisted that there had been no rape or sexual assault, and he made no mention of the victim's or their family's motivation. He said he will present witnesses to support him.
- The appellant’s brother, DW-2, claimed to be home for the entire day on November 6, 2014. However, during cross-examination, he admitted he wasn’t. The survivor’s maternal cousin sister, DW-3, narrated that she didn’t come to the premises.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The prosecution interviewed several witnesses, summarizing and explaining their statements. The appellant denied committing the crime, but did not claim the survivor visited the incident site. No animosity was found between the families, including border disputes.
- The appellant’s home was visited by the survivor on November 6, 2014, the trial court determined, without the survivor disputing their presence or invoking an existing conflict. The mother’s fake story, the brother’s testimony, and the cousin sister’s declaration were all disregarded by the court. The court emphasised the significance of the survivor’s descriptions of agony and suffering being consistent was deemed to be justified.
- The State contends that although the mother of the survivor gave comprehensive accounts of what she did on November 7, 2014, no proof was ever shown against her. The three defence witnesses were trained to say the survivor did not visit their home, and the appellant's family members allegedly threatened her. If the trial court rejects the evidence for grave reasons, perjury charges should be brought. There doesn't seem to have been a mistake in tossing out the evidence given, including the survivor's and her mother's credible claims.
- The medical examiner at Tura did not send the girl’s clothes for forensic examination, which was a serious lapse. If circumstances and evidence reveal the offense and the appellant’s involvement, the lapse would be negligible.
- The appellant had committed a crime under Section 376(2) of the Penal Code and was deserving of punishment under Section 6 of the Act of 2012 on November 6, 2014, the trial court had correctly found. There was no question about the survivor’s age or birth certificate.
- The appellant was found guilty by the trial court after considering the evidence and pertinent legal standards. A few days later, the punishment was announced, reflecting the earlier conviction verdict.
- Since there was no evidence of tampering with the sentence, Crl.A.No.30 of 2022 was duly dismissed.
