Introduction:

The Meghalaya High Court has reaffirmed that the credible and trustworthy testimony of a child survivor of sexual assault can form the foundation of a conviction, even without independent corroboration, particularly when the testimony remains unchallenged during cross-examination and receives support from medical evidence and other material on record. Emphasising the responsibility of a parent or guardian to protect a child, the Court refused to interfere with the conviction and sentence of a man who sexually assaulted his 10-year-old stepdaughter, observing that he had completely breached the relationship of trust and taken advantage of the child’s vulnerability.

In a significant judgment delivered on October 29, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W. Diengdoh dismissed an appeal filed by Millingstone Khardewsaw, who had been convicted under Sections 5(m) and 5(n), read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The appellant had challenged the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), South West Khasi Hills, which had sentenced him to 24 years of rigorous imprisonment for sexually assaulting his minor stepdaughter.

The case arose from an incident dated September 4, 2016, when the appellant allegedly sexually assaulted the 10-year-old girl at their residence in the absence of her mother. According to the prosecution, the survivor’s mother returned home and found her daughter lying unconscious, with her hands tied behind her back. The mother subsequently came to know about the sexual assault from the child herself. An FIR was registered on September 6, 2016, following which the appellant was arrested and the survivor was subjected to a medical examination.

During the trial, the prosecution relied primarily on the survivor’s testimony, the deposition of her mother, medical evidence and the appellant’s judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Special Court found the prosecution’s case established and convicted the appellant under the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act.

The appellant subsequently approached the Meghalaya High Court, questioning the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court. However, after examining the evidence, the High Court found no reason to disbelieve the survivor’s account. It particularly noted that her testimony regarding the sexual assault had not been challenged during cross-examination.

The judgment assumes significance in the context of the evidentiary principles governing sexual offence cases involving children. It reiterates that a conviction in such cases does not necessarily require independent corroboration when the survivor’s testimony is inherently reliable and inspires confidence. The Court also considered the significance of medical findings and the appellant’s own judicial confession in determining whether the prosecution had successfully established the charges.

The statutory provisions involved were Sections 5(m) and 5(n) of the POCSO Act, which classify specified forms of penetrative sexual assault as aggravated penetrative sexual assault, including offences committed against a child below 12 years of age and offences involving repeated assault. Section 6 prescribes punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. These provisions reflect the legislature’s recognition of the heightened vulnerability of children and the need for stringent punishment where sexual violence is committed in circumstances attracting the statutory aggravating factors.

The High Court ultimately concluded that the survivor’s testimony was reliable, supported by medical evidence and consistent with the appellant’s confession. Finding no infirmity in the trial court’s decision, it dismissed the appeal, upheld the sentence of 24 years of rigorous imprisonment and directed the District Legal Services Authority to submit a report concerning the disbursement of compensation amounting to ₹3 lakh to the survivor.

Arguments of the Parties:

The appellant, Millingstone Khardewsaw, approached the Meghalaya High Court challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge (POCSO), South West Khasi Hills. Through the appeal, he sought interference with the trial court’s judgment, which had found him guilty of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Sections 5(m) and 5(n), read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The principal issue before the appellate court was whether the evidence relied upon by the trial court was sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether the conviction and sentence warranted interference.

The appellant’s challenge was directed against the judgment of conviction and the consequent sentence of 24 years of rigorous imprisonment. However, the available case summary does not specify the individual grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal or identify any particular inconsistencies alleged by the appellant in the survivor’s testimony. Accordingly, no specific defence contention regarding the medical findings, confession or credibility of witnesses can be attributed to him beyond the fact that he challenged the conviction and sentence.

On the other hand, the prosecution’s case rested on the consistent account of the child survivor and the surrounding circumstances in which the incident came to light. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had sexually assaulted his 10-year-old stepdaughter on September 4, 2016, when her mother was not present at the residence.

According to the prosecution, the mother returned home and found the child unconscious, with her hands tied behind her back. The subsequent disclosure made by the child formed an important part of the prosecution’s case. The mother thereafter took steps that led to the registration of the FIR on September 6, 2016.

The prosecution relied upon the survivor’s testimony to establish the occurrence of the offence and identify the appellant as the person responsible. Her evidence was considered particularly important because she had directly experienced the incident and was in a position to describe what had happened.

The prosecution also relied on the mother’s deposition, which supported the circumstances in which the child was discovered and the subsequent disclosure of the assault. Her evidence provided an account of the events immediately following the alleged incident and supported the prosecution’s version regarding how the matter came to the attention of the authorities.

Another significant component of the prosecution’s case was the medical examination of the survivor. The medical findings reportedly revealed inflammation of the labia and a tear in the hymen. These findings were relied upon as corroborative material supporting the child’s account of sexual assault.

In addition to the oral and medical evidence, the prosecution placed considerable reliance on the appellant’s judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. In the confession, the appellant admitted to sexually assaulting his stepdaughter. This material further strengthened the prosecution’s case and provided an additional basis for sustaining the conviction.

The prosecution’s position, therefore, was supported by multiple forms of evidence rather than resting solely on the circumstances surrounding the complaint. The survivor’s direct testimony, her mother’s deposition, the medical findings and the judicial confession collectively formed the evidentiary foundation upon which the trial court had recorded its finding of guilt.

The State’s case before the appellate court was consequently that the trial court had properly appreciated the evidence and that there was no sufficient reason for the High Court to disturb the conviction or reduce the sentence.

The central question before the Division Bench was whether the survivor’s testimony could be safely relied upon, particularly when it had not been challenged during cross-examination, and whether the supporting medical and documentary material reinforced the conclusion reached by the Special Court.

Court’s Judgment:

The Meghalaya High Court examined the evidence considered by the Special Judge (POCSO), South West Khasi Hills, and found no legal or factual infirmity warranting interference with the conviction or sentence. The Division Bench placed particular emphasis on the credibility of the child survivor, the absence of any challenge to her account during cross-examination and the corroborative value of the medical evidence and the appellant’s judicial confession.

The Court observed that the survivor’s testimony was reliable, trustworthy and credible. Her account of the sexual assault had not been challenged during cross-examination, an aspect that the Bench considered significant while evaluating the evidentiary value of her deposition.

Credible testimony of the survivor sufficient to sustain conviction

One of the important aspects of the judgment concerns the evidentiary value of a survivor’s testimony in cases involving sexual offences against children.

The Court recognised that the testimony of a victim of sexual assault can independently sustain a conviction when it is found to be reliable and inspires confidence. The law does not impose an inflexible requirement that every allegation of sexual assault must be supported by independent corroboration before a conviction can be recorded.

In the present case, the Bench found the child’s testimony sufficiently credible to be relied upon. Her account had not been effectively challenged during cross-examination, and the Court found no reason to discard the evidence placed before the trial court.

The significance of this observation lies in the distinction between the legal requirement of proof and an unnecessary insistence on corroboration in every sexual offence case. A court must examine the quality and reliability of the evidence rather than apply a mechanical rule requiring additional witnesses or independent material in all circumstances.

This approach is particularly relevant in cases involving child survivors. Sexual offences against children frequently occur in private spaces, away from public view, and the survivor may be the most important direct witness to the incident. Requiring independent eyewitnesses as a universal condition for conviction would therefore create an unreasonable evidentiary burden.

The Court’s reasoning reinforces the principle that the testimony of a survivor should be evaluated on its own merits. Where the account is natural, consistent and trustworthy, it can form the basis of conviction. In the present matter, the Bench found that the survivor’s testimony met this standard.

Medical evidence provided corroboration

The Court also took note of the medical findings recorded following the examination of the child.

The medical evidence revealed inflammation of the labia and a tear in the hymen. These findings were considered alongside the survivor’s testimony and other evidence available on record.

The importance of medical evidence in sexual assault cases lies in its ability to provide scientific support to the prosecution’s version. While medical findings do not necessarily establish every aspect of an alleged offence or independently identify the perpetrator, they can lend assurance to the testimony of a survivor when the findings are consistent with the allegations.

In this case, the medical findings supported the survivor’s account and strengthened the prosecution’s case. The High Court did not treat the medical evidence as an isolated basis for conviction but considered it together with the child’s deposition and the other material produced during the trial.

This combined assessment was important because the Court was required to determine whether the trial court’s conclusion was supported by the overall evidentiary record. Having considered the relevant material, the Bench found that the medical evidence provided further support to the survivor’s credible testimony.

Appellant’s judicial confession under Section 164 CrPC

Another important circumstance considered by the High Court was the appellant’s judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 164 CrPC provides the statutory framework for recording confessions and statements during an investigation or before the commencement of an inquiry or trial. A confession recorded under this provision must satisfy the applicable legal safeguards, including the requirement that it be voluntary and recorded in the prescribed manner.

The prosecution relied upon the appellant’s confession, in which he admitted to sexually assaulting his stepdaughter. The High Court considered this confession alongside the survivor’s testimony and medical findings.

The confession was particularly relevant because it provided an additional evidentiary circumstance supporting the prosecution’s allegations. The Court therefore found that the trial court’s conclusion was not based merely on an uncorroborated allegation but was supported by the appellant’s own judicial confession as well.

The evidentiary significance of a judicial confession must always be assessed in accordance with the applicable legal principles. A confession cannot be treated as reliable merely because it has been recorded under a particular statutory provision; its voluntariness and compliance with procedural safeguards remain important considerations. In the present case, however, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court’s reliance on the confession.

Aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act

The appellant had been convicted under Sections 5(m) and 5(n), read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

Section 5 identifies circumstances in which penetrative sexual assault assumes the character of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Clause (m) covers cases where the child subjected to the offence is below 12 years of age. Clause (n) covers cases involving repeated penetrative sexual assault on a child.

The provisions recognise that certain circumstances make sexual offences against children particularly serious and warrant enhanced punishment.

Section 6 prescribes the punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Following the amendments introduced in 2019, the provision provides for rigorous imprisonment of not less than 20 years, which may extend to imprisonment for the remainder of the offender’s natural life, and also provides for fine.

The survivor in the present case was only 10 years old at the time of the incident. Accordingly, the age-related aggravating circumstance under Section 5(m) was directly relevant to the conviction.

The charge under Section 5(n) was also part of the conviction recorded by the Special Court. The High Court ultimately upheld the conviction under both clauses read with Section 6.

The statutory framework demonstrates the seriousness with which Parliament treats sexual offences involving very young children. The enhanced punishment under Section 6 reflects the legislative objective of providing stronger protection to children against aggravated forms of sexual violence.

Breach of trust within a family relationship

Apart from examining the legal and evidentiary aspects, the High Court expressed strong disapproval of the appellant’s conduct, particularly considering his relationship with the survivor.

The Bench observed that the appellant had completely breached the relationship of trust between himself and his stepdaughter. Instead of protecting the child and ensuring her safety, he had taken advantage of her vulnerability and sexually assaulted her when her mother was not at home.

The Court observed:

“The appellant has completely breached the relationship of trust between him and his stepdaughter, and had taken undue advantage of his stepdaughter by sexually assaulting her when his wife was not at home. Having regard to the aforesaid, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and as such, the appeal is dismissed.”

This observation highlights the seriousness of sexual offences committed within domestic and family settings. A child is entitled to feel secure within the home, particularly in the presence of adults who occupy positions of responsibility and trust.

The Court’s remarks indicate that the appellant’s conduct was particularly reprehensible because he had abused the trust associated with his position within the family. The relationship between the appellant and the survivor carried an expectation of protection and care, which had been completely undermined by the offence.

The Bench therefore found no justification for showing leniency or interfering with the punishment imposed by the trial court.

No ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence

After considering the survivor’s testimony, the mother’s deposition, the medical evidence and the appellant’s judicial confession, the High Court concluded that the trial court had correctly appreciated the material available on record.

The Bench found the survivor’s testimony credible and trustworthy and noted that it had remained unchallenged during cross-examination. The medical findings and the appellant’s confession further strengthened the prosecution’s case.

In these circumstances, the Court found no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), South West Khasi Hills. It consequently refused to interfere with either the finding of guilt or the sentence of 24 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of Millingstone Khardewsaw under Sections 5(m) and 5(n), read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

Direction concerning ₹3 lakh compensation to the survivor

Apart from upholding the conviction and sentence, the High Court also addressed the issue of compensation payable to the child survivor.

The Bench directed the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) concerned to submit a report regarding the disbursement of ₹3 lakh compensation to the survivor.

The direction reflects the importance of ensuring that a child victim receives the financial assistance contemplated under the victim compensation framework. Criminal proceedings do not end with the determination of the accused person’s guilt; the legal system must also address the welfare, rehabilitation and support requirements of survivors.

In cases involving children who have experienced sexual violence, compensation can serve as an important component of rehabilitation and assistance. The direction to obtain a report from the DLSA was therefore intended to ensure that the compensation-related aspect received appropriate attention.

Ultimately, the Meghalaya High Court dismissed the appeal, maintained the sentence of 24 years of rigorous imprisonment and directed the DLSA to report on the disbursement of ₹3 lakh compensation to the survivor.

The ruling reinforces the principle that credible testimony from a child survivor can be sufficient to sustain a conviction when it inspires confidence and is supported by the surrounding evidence. It also sends a strong message against the abuse of trust within family relationships, particularly where a child is subjected to sexual violence by someone expected to provide protection and security.

By refusing to interfere with the conviction, the Court reaffirmed the need for a careful and sensitive approach towards child survivors while ensuring that perpetrators of aggravated sexual offences are held accountable under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act.