DH Latest NewsDH NEWSLatest NewsIndiaNEWS

Meghalaya High Court criticises state administration for failing to appeal rape convict’s acquittal

The Meghalaya high court censured the state government on Tuesday for failing to appeal the acquittal of a man who was charged with raping and impregnating his minor stepdaughter.

 

The state government was criticised by a division bench led by Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh for failing to appeal the order and decision of a trial court clearing a man who was accused of raping and impregnating his stepdaughter.

 

The state government was criticised for its negligence in failing to conduct a DNA testing to evaluate the father of the child the minor girl gave birth to. The bench made the following observation: ‘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 arrested under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act after being accused of raping his minor stepdaughter. The alleged victim categorically stated at the trial that the accused had not raped her, and as a result, the trial court absolved him.

 

The victim’s aunt filed an instant application for permission to file an appeal against the October 31, 2019, acquittal order, which led to the discovery of the situation. However, the Court rejected the plea because the putative survivor’s total denial of the incident constituted the basis for the ruling of acquittal.

 

‘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,’ the Court remarked.

shortlink

Post Your Comments


Back to top button