In a landmark ruling, the Meghalaya High Court has reaffirmed its commitment to justice for survivors of sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). A bench led by Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee delivered the verdict, emphasizing that the absence of witnesses should not be a reason to exonerate the accused in such cases.

Justice Banerjee, along with Justice W Diengdoh, highlighted the secretive and predatory nature of these offenses, often occurring away from public view, where perpetrators manipulate and lure survivors, especially child victims, to isolated locations. The court acknowledged the difficulty for survivor-children to fabricate and consistently recount their traumatic experiences.

The court firmly stated, "The law requires the survivor's allegation to be taken seriously and, if found credible, accepted. In the case of child survivors, it is unlikely that a fabricated story would be conjured and consistently repeated. Hence, the lack of witnesses to the incident alone cannot absolve the accused of guilt."

The ruling dispelled the misconception that uncorroborated allegations and blanket denials by the accused should invalidate the survivor's account.

"It is time to discredit the defense often taken by accused individuals facing charges of rape or sexual assault. No matter how depraved a person may be, they would not commit such acts openly. These offenses are committed covertly when the survivor is alone or enticed to secluded places," the court asserted.

The court's observations came during the dismissal of an appeal by a tuition teacher accused of aggravated penetrative sexual assault against a 9-year-old student. The survivor's medical examination revealed lacerations and tears in the anus, supporting the allegations.

The petitioner argued that his brother and another student, who were present during the tuition class, were not examined as witnesses during the trial. However, the High Court held that the survivor's credible statement, corroborating medical evidence, and the absence of procedural errors in the trial justified the conviction.

"Even though the prosecution did not cite Babuji, the survivor's father, as a witness or the father may have exaggerated the duration of the tuition class, these factors do not diminish the highly believable account of a nine-year-old survivor during his statement under Section 164 of the Code and the description of the incidents provided during the medical examination," the judgment stated.

The bench emphasized that the defense had the opportunity to call witnesses but failed to do so, and thus cannot speculate on what those individuals might have said to contradict the survivor's consistent testimony.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed, upholding the trial court's verdict.

Advocate PT Sangma represented the accused, while Government Advocates R Gurung and S Shyam appeared on behalf of the State government.