Meghalaya HC pulls up state govt for not challenging rape convict’s acquittal

The bench admonished the state government for its failure to challenge the trial court order acquitting a man accused of allegedly raping and impregnating stepdaughter

The Meghalaya high court on Tuesday reprimanded the state government for not challenging acquittal of a man accused of raping and impregnating his minor stepdaughter.

A man was accused of raping his minor stepdaughter and booked under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. (File image)

A division bench consisting of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh admonished the state government for its failure to challenge the order and judgment of a trial court acquitting a man accused of allegedly raping and impregnating his stepdaughter.

Reprimanding the state government’s negligence in conducting a DNA test to ascertain the identity of the father of the child borne by the minor girl, the bench observed, “It is somewhat surprising that the State did not prefer an appeal or try to get to the bottom of the matter by insisting on a DNA test to be conducted. Sexual abuse of children is a social malaise that is deep-rooted and if the State does not treat the matter seriously and confines its role to the mere prosecutor’s job that it has to discharge in law, the larger menace may not be arrested.”

A man was accused of raping his minor stepdaughter and booked under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. However, the trial court acquitted him citing the fact that the alleged survivor had categorically testified at the trial that the accused had not committed rape on her.

The matter became known after the victim’s aunt moved an instant application seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the acquittal order dated October 31, 2019. However, the Court dismissed the application because the order of acquittal was based on the alleged survivor’s complete denial of the incident.

“It is an admitted position that the alleged survivor in this case is now 21 years old and an adult. She has not stepped forward to prefer an appeal, for reasons that may not be difficult to gauge. However, the law does not permit any surmise or conjecture and the alleged survivor’s statement has to be taken at face value,” remarked the Court.

However, before dismissing the aunt’s plea, the bench, in its order, did take note of the conventional Indian mindset that in such cases, it is the survivor who is blamed, shamed, and made to feel that it was the survivor’s fault that brought such woe upon herself.

Pointing out that wives of sexual offenders are often reluctant to depose against their husbands out of physical fear or the fear of being abandoned, the Court also pointed out that even stepchildren who are abused are disinclined to complain, since they may have no alternative means of sustaining themselves.

“These are matters where the State should be proactive and whenever there is a whiff of coercion or threat on the survivor or the informant, the State should step in to ensure that justice is done, whether by giving protection to the victim or by counselling the victim and other relatives,” the Court observed while urging, “The State commission for women may also have a role to play in such cases.”

Acknowledging the fact that the applicant in this case sought to take up cudgels on behalf of the alleged survivor in the quest for justice as the alleged survivor may not be in a position where she could decide for herself, the Court reasoned that since the applicant seeking leave to appeal is neither the informant nor the alleged survivor and the order of acquittal is based on the alleged survivor’s complete denial of the incident, no leave can be granted to the applicant to prefer the proposed appeal.

Expressing hope that the applicant pursues the worthy cause otherwise in accordance with law, the Court sought to know, “It is also hoped that the State has an adequate explanation to justify its failure to prefer an appeal or take appropriate measures in the matter.”