Melason Marak, S/o. LT. Haren Chengma vs State Of Assam, Rep. By P.p., Assam

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Gau) 998

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Melason Marak, S/o. LT. Haren Chengma – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Rep. By P.p., Assam And Anr. – Respondent
Crl.A. 120 of 2020
Decided On : 08-04-2026

Important Points

A conviction for sexual assault can be sustained solely on the victim's testimony if it is found trustworthy, consistent, and credible. Mandatory corroboration is not required, and the absence of forensic evidence or delay in filing an complaint does not per se negate the guilt of the accused.

Subject

Criminal Law - Sexual Offences

Act Referred

INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.120(b), S.354, S.375, S.376, S.420, S.422, S.506
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.161, S.164, S.313

Headnote

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 420, 506 - Nature of Evidence - Testimony of victim of sexual assault - Adequacy of - Conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix provided it inspires confidence - The prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be treated as an accomplice - Evidence Act does not require corroboration in material particulars for such cases - Absence of internal injuries or DNA reports does not automatically invalidate a case provided the testimony of the survivor remains consistent and trustworthy. (Paras 31, 32, 33)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Reappreciation of Evidence - Scope of interferece - An appellate court should not interfere with the findings of the trial court unless the decision is perverse or suffers from manifest illegality - The court below has to be given due weight, especially when the credibility of witnesses is assessed. (Para 35)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for committing non-consensual sexual acts upon a victim who was placed under his care for traditional medical treatment. The accused raised a defense of a consensual relationship and alleged that the proceedings were fabricated to facilitate his eviction from a property he had purchased. The appellant challenged the judgment of the trial court, citing the absence of external injury reports, the lack of forensic evidence, and the delay in lodging the initial complaint.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the testimony of the victim remained consistent across all stages of the legal proceedings. Evidence regarding a failed community-level reconciliation attempt supported the victim's claim, as the accused had admitted guilt and offered a monetary settlement. The court found the defense's claim of false implication to be unsubstantiated, as no credible motive for such a fabrication was presented by the appellant.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the sufficiency of the victim's sole testimony for conviction in the absence of forensic corroboration and whether the delay in lodging the formal complaint rendered the victim's account unreliable.

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio is that in cases of sexual violence, the status of the survivor is not that of an accomplice, and their evidence does not require mandatory corroboration if the court is satisfied with its reliability. Consistence in the testimony of the victim is sufficient for a conviction, and the court is not bound by a necessity for DNA or medical reports where the surviving narrative is deemed authentic.

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:MR. T Deuri, Ms B Hazarika Advocate
For the Respondent: Pp, Assam, Adv.

Table of Content
1. overview of criminal procedure, initial litigation history, and factual case background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. parties' conflicting arguments regarding consent, the veracity of the prosecutrix's testimony, and the necessity of corroborating evidence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. detailed judicial scrutiny and analysis of testimony provided by prosecution witnesses and medical evidence. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. evaluation of circumstantial evidence and rejection of the defense’s claim of false implication. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. legal standard regarding the reliability of a victim’s sole testimony in sexual assault cases and admissibility of conviction based thereon. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
6. formal court order dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction. (Para 35)

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

Heard Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent No.1. None is present to represent the respondent No.2.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 05.12.2019, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar in Sessions Case No.68/2019, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 8 (eight) years for committing an offence under Section 376 of the IPC and fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand), in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for another 6 (six) months and to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 (two) years for committing an offence under Section 420 of the and to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months for committing an offence under Section 506 of the .

3. The prosecution case, as revealed from the FIR lodged by the informant/the victim of the case is that the accused being known as Kabiraj, she was brought by her father for treatment of jaundice fever. The Kabiraj/accused stated her father to keep the victim in the residence of the accused person for better treatment and accordingly, she was left in the residence of the accused person and the accused taking the advantage, sexually assaulted the victim and committed rape against her forcefully. Accused person also instructed her not to disclose the matter of rape to anyone. While victim was developing her 27 weeks pregnancy, the family members saw her physical transformation and on query of the family members, the victim disclosed the evil deeds of the accused person and accordingly, she lodged the FIR before the police. On receipt of the FIR, the officer-in-charge of the Bagribari Police Station registered the Bagribari P.S. Case No.53/18, against the accused person, namely, Melason Marak under Sections 120(B)/354/420/376/506 of the IPC. The investigation officer visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the witnesses including the statement of victim under Section 164 of the CrPC and the victim was medically examined. After completion of the investigation and having found sufficient evidence against the accused person, submitted the charge sheet against him under Section 376/420/506 .

4. As the offence is exclusively Sessions triable, hence the learned Addl. CJM, Kokrajhar committed the case to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar and the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar registered it as a Sessions case and transferred the same to the Asstt. Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar for disposal. On appearance of the accused person and hearing the counsel for both sides, prima-facie materials were found against the accused Melason Marak under Section 376/420/506 IPC. Hence, formal charge was framed against the accused under the aforesaid section of law and the same being read over and explained, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as eight (8) witnesses including the M.O. and I.O. and