SHILLONG, Sept 16: The Meghalaya High Court has set aside the conviction of a man sentenced to 10 years in prison under the POCSO Act, holding that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Emanuel Marwein was the person who sexually assaulted the survivor.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W. Diengdoh allowed Marwein’s appeal against his conviction by the Special Judge (POCSO), West Khasi Hills, Nongstoin. The trial court had convicted him under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 of the IPC and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a Rs 25,000 fine under the POCSO Act, besides two years’ rigorous imprisonment under the IPC.
The case arose from a June 2017 complaint concerning a letter allegedly written by the survivor, who was around 13 at the time, alleging that she had been sexually assaulted by an uncle. An FIR was subsequently registered against Marwein.
The High Court found discrepancies over the identity of the alleged perpetrator. While the survivor identified Marwein in court, the doctor who examined her recorded that she had identified the alleged assailant only as “Mama”. According to the doctor, relatives later identified the person referred to as “Mama” as Phring Monday Marwein, a different person from the appellant.
The court noted a “clear dichotomy” between the survivor’s evidence and the medical record, observing that although both men were described as uncles, their names were different. It also noted that the letter did not name the alleged perpetrator and referred to him only as the “eldest uncle”.
The bench further found a discrepancy in the dates, noting that the letter was dated June 28, 2017, while the FIR was lodged on June 8. It said the discrepancy could not be reconciled with the prosecution’s claim that the FIR was registered on the basis of the letter.
The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Marwein had committed the sexual assault and quashed the 2022 conviction and sentence. It directed his immediate release if he was not required in any other case and ordered the refund of any fine deposited.
