The High Court of Meghalaya has reduced a life sentence to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment for a father convicted of repeatedly sexually assaulting his minor daughter. The Division Bench, comprising Justice W. Diengdoh and Justice B. Bhattacharjee, ruled that the original sentencing of imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant's natural life was excessively harsh, opting instead for a fixed-term punishment to balance the severity of the crime with the principles of reformative justice.

The criminal proceedings originated from an First Information Report filed on January 27, 2019, at the Women Police Station in Nongpoh, Ri-Bhoi District. According to the prosecution, the survivor had disclosed to her grandparents that her father, Anthony Kharbani, had subjected her to sexual assault over a four-year period, with the most recent incident occurring in November 2018. Following her disclosure, the survivor was examined by medical officials, and an investigation led to the filing of a charge sheet in the court of the Special Judge, Nongpoh.

Although the trial court framed charges under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and the appellant initially signaled an intention to plead guilty, the trial court proceeded to record evidence from eight witnesses. Throughout the trial, the prosecution presented thirteen exhibits to substantiate the charges. In his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied all allegations. The trial court ultimately found him guilty of offences under Section 5(l)(m) and (n) of the POCSO Act and, in June 2021, sentenced him to rigorous life imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000.

On appeal, the defense counsel argued that the trial court’s conviction was procedurally flawed. Specifically, the defense contended that the framing of charges was vague and failed to provide necessary details regarding the dates, times, and locations of the alleged assaults, thereby prejudicing the appellant’s ability to mount a proper defense. Furthermore, the defense pointed to the absence of forensic science laboratory reports as a failure of the prosecution to adequately corroborate the survivor’s testimony, suggesting that an adverse inference should have been drawn. The defense also raised constitutional concerns, arguing that the sentencing imposed by the trial court effectively applied post-amendment punishments to an offence alleged to have been committed before the 2019 POCSO Act amendments, which they argued violated Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India.

The prosecution, represented by the state government, maintained that the survivor's testimony remained consistent and credible throughout the judicial process. They highlighted that in cases of incestuous sexual violence, the testimony of the survivor carries significant weight. The state argued that the trial court was correct in relying on the survivor’s vivid account of the abuse, and that the failure to produce a forensic report did not diminish the veracity of the oral evidence provided by the victim and her family members.

In its judgment, the High Court scrutinized the evidentiary value of the survivor’s testimony. The court noted that while the survivor could not recall the exact dates of all historical incidents, her consistent narrative regarding the nature and repetition of the abuse was persuasive. The court emphasized that the survivor’s status as a victim of abuse does not mandate corroboration in every detail, provided the testimony itself inspires judicial confidence. Regarding the age of the survivor, the court verified the birth certificate provided by the mother, confirming that the survivor was under 12 years of age during the period of the alleged assaults, thereby triggering the specific provisions of the POCSO Act.

Addressing the challenge to the sentencing, the bench acknowledged the gravity of the betrayal of trust inherent in a father-daughter relationship. However, the judges found the trial court ’s imposition of a life sentence for the remainder of the convict's natural life to be disproportionate, particularly given the appellant’s status as a first-time offender and his social background. The bench reflected on the cardinal principle of reformation , observing that "the punishment meted to him is too harsh."

In determining the revised sentence, the High Court drew parallels to established jurisprudence in other jurisdictions, specifically noting that while the perpetrator of such crimes deserves severe condemnation, fixed-term sentencing can often serve the interests of both societal protection and the offender’s potential for reform. The court noted that, under the powers derived from the Indian Penal Code and interpreted by the Supreme Court, the high court has the authority to impose a modified, fixed-term sentence when the case does not fall within the "rarest of the rare" category.

Consequently, the court ordered that the life sentence be modified to a fixed term of 25 years of rigorous imprisonment. The fine of ₹10,000, along with the default sentence of three months of additional imprisonment, remains in force. The High Court clarified that this modification was strictly focused on the quantum of punishment, affirming that the conviction itself remains undisturbed. The trial court records are to be returned, and the appellant is to serve the remainder of the 25-year term under the revised order. This resolution emphasizes the court's role in balancing the legal necessity of punishing child sexual abuse with the constitutional mandate to ensure that sentencing remains proportionate to the individual facts and circumstances of each case.