Absence of FSL Report Not Fatal in Sexual Offence Cases: Meghalaya HC
Copy Link
Share
Save
Flaws in police investigation cannot override the unblemished account of a minor survivor, as missing forensic traces or an intact hymen do not automatically disprove penetrative sexual assault. Upholding a 20-year conviction, the High Court affirmed that corroboration is unnecessary when the victim's testimony inspires complete judicial confidence.
A Division Bench comprising Justice W. Diengdoh and Justice B. Bhattacharjee rejected the appeal of an accused convicted of heinous sexual offences against a minor. The Court considered whether procedural lapses, such as the absence of a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report and a three-day delay in filing the FIR, were sufficient to undermine the prosecution's case.
Key Takeaways
- Credibility Over Forensic Traces
FSL reports serve as corroborative material and their absence does not discard consistent, credible testimony of a minor survivor.
- Delay in FIR Is Not Fatal
Social stigma and psychological factors naturally cause delays in reporting sexual assault, preventing courts from throwing out genuine cases on technical grounds.
- Quality Over Quantity of Evidence
The prosecution is not required to examine every individual informed post-incident; the testimony of key witnesses suffices.
- Non-confrontation of Statements
Failure by the defense to confront the survivor with past statements under Section 161 or 164 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 during cross-examination prevents later claims of fatal discrepancy.
Court's Analysis on Forensic Evidence and Delays
The High Court carefully evaluated the defense arguments regarding missing FSL reports, non-examination of all named witnesses, and medical evidence. Reaffirming established legal principles, the Bench observed that a minor victim should not suffer due to the investigating agency's omissions. The Court noted that physical tearing or injuries do not occur in every instance of penetrative assault, and an FSL report is merely corroborative rather than substantive proof on its own.
Addressing the delay in lodging the FIR, the Court relied on State of Himachal Pradesh V. Prem Singh ( "(2009) 1 SCC 420": 2008 CaseBase(SC) 556) to emphasize that delay in sexual assault cases cannot be equated with general criminal offences, given the complex socio-psychological factors involved in tradition-bound societies.
The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The absence of FSL report is not a ground for drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution or for discarding a case of penetrative sexual offence against a minor survivor provided the testimony of the survivor is consistent, credible and unblemished by major contradiction. An FSL report is only a corroborative piece of evidence. It is not substantive proof on its own and its absence does not automatically nullify a reliable first-hand account."
Addressing the appreciation of a single victim's evidence, the Court cited Ganesan V. State ( "(2020) 10 SCC 573": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 1831) and State of Himachal Pradesh V. Raghubir Singh ( "(2024) SCC OnLine SC 940": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 103) to reiterate that conviction can rest solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence, as evidence must be weighed and not counted.
Ratio
In prosecutions for sexual offences, minor contradictions, a delay in lodging the FIR, or the absence of forensic corroboration like an FSL report cannot undermine an otherwise credible and consistent testimony of the survivor. The sole testimony of a victim of sexual assault, if trustworthy and inspiring judicial confidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction without needing independent corroboration.
Background
The case originated from an FIR lodged on November 23, 2014, alleging that on November 20, 2014, the appellant committed forcible rape on a minor girl at her residence. Following the investigation, charges were framed under Sections 3(a) and 4 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 alongside Sections 450 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Later, the Trial Court altered and added charges to include additional provisions under both statutes, such as Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Special Judge (POCSO), East Khasi Hills, convicted the appellant on October 11, 2022, sentencing him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 alongside concurrent sentences for other charges. The appellant challenged the judgment, arguing that there were material contradictions, delay in the FIR, lack of FSL analysis on seized items, failure to examine all named witnesses, and improper age determination of the victim.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the victim's testimony was unblemished and fully supported by post-incident events, while the appellant offered no explanation for his presence at the scene or his failure to dispute the victim's age during trial.
Case Details:
Case No.: Crl.A. No.1 of 2023
Neutral Citation: 2026:MLHC:938-DB
Case Title: Wanteilang Khongkhniang v. The State of Meghalaya
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, Adv., Mr. P.P. Medhi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with Mr. E.R. Chyne, GA.
Source: 2026 CaseBase(MEG) 385
Similar Articles
Breaking News
