5 min readNew DelhiMar 23, 2026 10:52 AM ISTIt is important to note that the survivor has clearly stated that the act perpetrated upon her by the accused is not one of consent, the Meghalaya High Court said. (Image generated using AI)Meghalaya High Court news: More than a decade after the incident, the Meghalaya High Court has upheld the seven-year imprisonment of a rape accused, holding that minor discrepancies do not affect the core truth of the survivor’s testimony.Hearing a plea by the accused challenging the trial court’s 2021 conviction order, Justice W Diengdoh pointed out that evidence of the survivor would be of grave importance in sexual assault cases. Justice W Diengdoh pronounced the order on March 20.“This statement (incident) matched whatever was said in the court, though there are some minor and trivial discrepancies which did not materially affect the core or fundamental recital of the facts of the narration of the victim,” the high court said in its March 20 order.Also Read | A ‘confession’, life term, then freedom: 22 years after the murder of her husband and son, Meghalaya High Court acquits woman‘No consent’Since it is a case involving sexual assault or rape, the evidence of the survivor would be of grave importance.The evidence placed on record by the survivor is found to be reliable and believable.The medical report filed by the doctor concerned, who has examined the survivor, has also revealed that there were signs of recent forceful intercourse with multiple bruises on her body.The delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) under the circumstances of the present case has no negative impact.The exact age of the survivor on the date of the said occurrence has not been proved.Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the survivor is about 16 years or so, it is important to note that she has clearly stated that the act perpetrated upon her by the accused is not one of consent.On the whole, the court held that the prosecution had successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and that there was no legal infirmity in the trial court’s judgment warranting interference.The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.Also Read | ‘Marital rape not crime, but other offences stand’: Why Meghalaya High Court refused to quash ‘entire FIR’ against police officerIncident ‘after church service’The complainant’s minor daughter was allegedly raped at about 08.30 pm on July 25, 2010, when the girl, aged about 14 years, was returning from an evening church service in their village.The investigation officer found a prima facie case against the accused made out under IPC Section 376 (rape), and he was sent to face trial.The trial court found it fit to impose a sentence of imprisonment of seven years with a fine of Rs 10,000. For failing to pay the fine, the court held that the convict should undergo simple imprisonment for another two months.‘Unexplained delay of 4 days’Appearing for the petitioner, advocate S Marpan argued that the girl’s testimony on which the trial court had strongly relied to convict his client does not befit the standard of a ‘sterling witness’ and, therefore, reliance on the same has resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice.It was further emphasised that the alleged rape took place on July 25, 2010, but the FIR was lodged only on July 29, 2010.Since there was no explanation as to the delay of four days, it would give rise to suspicion of embellishment, afterthought and false implication.It was further pointed out that the girl’s medical report does not reveal any injuries suggestive of forcible sexual intercourse, nor any external or internal sign of struggle.There is a clear misinterpretation of facts regarding her age, and as such, her testimony cannot be believed because of such an inconsistency.Marpan reiterated that at the relevant point in time, sexual intercourse with a girl above 16 years cannot be considered rape unless the absence of consent is proved.It is a case where delay, embellishment, medical contradiction, absence of forensic linkage, age misrepresentation and grave prejudice have cumulatively rendered the conviction unsafe.Also Read | Meghalaya High Court grants bail to 24-year-old youth in POCSO case, cites ‘romantic relation’No legal infirmityAdditional advocate general N D Chullai submitted that there is no legal infirmity with the trial court’s judgment and sentence, and the same may be upheld by this court.The case in hand involves a sexual offence, and as such, this is not the case where there is an inordinate delay in the filing of an FIR.The factum of rape, as far as the survivor is concerned, has also been further proved by the medical evidence through the medical report.Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape. Expertise Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen. Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on: Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy. Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt LtdAdvertisementLoading Recommendations...