Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 184

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
W. Diengdoh, J
Chanky Shadap – Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya – Respondent
Crl.A. No. 22 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Marpan
For the Respondents: N.D. Chullai, E.R. Chyne

Conviction for sexual assault remains valid despite a delay in filing the complaint, minor inconsistencies in testimony, or procedural defects in charges, provided the victim's testimony is credible, forensic evidence supports the finding, and the accused was fully aware of the allegations and suffered no prejudice.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 375 and 376 - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 164, 215, 313, 464 and 465 - Rape conviction - Delay in filing final report - Effect of minor inconsistencies in testimony - Reliability of victim testimony - Sufficiency of forensic corroboration.

(B) Delay in lodging a complaint is not a ground for acquittal in sexual offences where such delay is explained by the victim's trauma, social stigma, or family dilemma. Delay does not render the prosecution case brittle when the victim’s version is found trustworthy (Paras 20, 32-34).

(C) Discrepancies in the testimony of a victim that do not impact the core narrative or fundamental facts of the incident do not render the testimony unworthy of belief (Para 30).

(D) A failure to specify a particular clause of the penal provision in a charge does not cause a failure of justice if the accused is fully aware of the nature of the accusation and has participated in the trial without demonstrating prejudice (Paras 35-38).

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the sexual assault of a minor. The complaint was lodged four days after the incident. The appellant challenged the conviction based on the delay in reporting, inconsistencies between the statement under procedural provisions and court evidence, alleged medical contradictions, and the absence of specific penal clauses in the framing of the charge.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the delay was satisfactorily explained by the circumstances of a minor victim's trauma. The medical reports corroborated the prosecution’s version of events. Minor contradictions in the testimony did not diminish the credibility of the primary accusation. The contention of prejudice due to procedural omissions in the charge was rejected as the accused had full opportunity to contest the allegations during trial.

Issues: Whether the delay in reporting warrants acquittal, whether the victim's testimony is credible, whether medical evidence supports the charge, and whether procedural errors in framing the charge vitiate the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay in reporting sexual misconduct is not fatal when explained. Testimony remains credible if the core sequence of events is consistent, regardless of minor discrepancies. Procedural errors in framing a charge do not invalidate a conviction if the accused is aware of the allegations and receives a fair trial.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of trial proceedings and conviction for rape under section 376 ipc. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. defence challenges conviction based on delayed fir, evidentiary inconsistencies, and improper charge framing. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. prosecution contends conviction is sound, emphasizing victim testimony and medical evidence relevance. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. court evaluates witness testimony and confirms consistency of the victim's narration. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. corroborative medical evidence and justification for fir delay in sexual assault cases. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
6. absence of prejudice regarding charge framing under section 464 crpc. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
7. dismissal of appeal and confirmation of the trial court judgment. (Para 39 , 40 , 41)

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1. An incident concerning an act of rape perpetrated on the minor daughter of the complainant, wherein an FIR was filed on 29.07.2010, before the Officer In-charge, Jowai, Police Station, then Jaintia Hills District, has set into motion the prosecution case against the accused/appellant herein.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant in the said FIR had informed the Officer In-charge, that on 25.07.2010 at about 08:30 PM or so, when her said minor daughter aged about 14 years was returning from an evening Church service in their village, the accused/appellant had met her on her way and had pulled her into the jungle after which he had raped her.

3. Accordingly, the case was registered as Jowai P.S Case No. 125 (7) 2010 under Section 376 IPC, and a women Police Officer was tasked with the investigation of the case.

4. The said Investigating Officer (I/O) had immediately arrested the accused/appellant on 29.07.2010 at about 03:00 PM or so, and on the same day, he was sent for medical examination, which was done so at about 06:40 PM, the same being conducted by Dr. J. Buam.

5. The I/O had also recorded the initial statement of the complainant, the accused as well as the victim. The statement of the victim girl was also recorded by a First-Class Magistrate as required under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On completion of the investigation, the I/O has found a prima facie case against the accused/appellant made out under Section 376 IPC and he was sent to face trial before the competent court of jurisdiction.

6. At the commencement of the trial, it is noticed that the Trial Court vide order dated 05.11.2013 has recorded that the charge under Section 376 IPC has been framed against the accused/appellant, the same on being read out and explained to the accused person, he declined to confess and claim to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses, including the complainant and the victim girl and has also exhibited the FIR, the Medical Report of the doctor, who has examined the victim girl and the statement of the victim girl made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On the conclusion of recording of evidence, the court has then noted the statement of the accused person as provided under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

7. Thereafter, the argument of the respective parties was heard by the learned Trial Court, and on consideration of the same, including the relevant materials available on record, the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2021 was passed finding the accused/appellant guilty of committing rape on the victim on 25.07.2010, which offence is punishable under Section 376 IPC.

8. When the learned Trial court heard the parties on the issue of sentence, the learned Trial Court has reiterated that the accused/appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, and upon weighing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, has found it fit to impose a sentence of imprisonment of 7 years with fine of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), failing payment of fine, the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for another 2 months.

9. Heard

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 184

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYAW. Diengdoh, JChanky Shadap – AppellantVersusState of Meghalaya – RespondentCrl.A. No. 22 of 2025

Cases Referred (4)

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
W. Diengdoh, J
Chanky Shadap – Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya – Respondent
Crl.A. No. 22 of 2025