"Society Owes Huge Apology For Failing Its Precious & Tender": Meghalaya High Court Upholds 25-Yrs Sentence Of Ex-Legislator For Raping Minor

A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh observed,

“This brings to an end the ghastly saga of the rather heinous and dastardly conduct of a person who held high public office. Nothing brought out by the defence in course of the trial could detract from the survivor’s credible account of how she suffered at the hands of the appellant herein.”

Dorphang is booked in two FIRs, one registered in Umiam and another at Madanryting for the alleged incident of rape committed there. The present case pertained to the former jurisdiction.

He had challenged the judgment of trial court convicting him under Sections 376(2)(i) and (n) of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and sentencing him to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment alongside a fine of Rs.15 lakh, to be made over as compensation to the survivor.

In her testimony under Section 164 CrPC, the survivor had narrated her entire ordeal, right from the time she was lured by a Nepali lady to come to Shillong and through several of the incidents pertaining to other men exploiting her, apart from the former MLA.

The survivor had described her encounters with Dorphang in Umiam in "gory detail" to the Court. She claimed that the former MLA made her “sleep with him" while she was bleeding profusely.

It was argued that the minority of the child was not established during the trial. Further, since there were two FIRs against Dorphang, the trial court consulted the records pertaining to the investigation relating to the first FIR, even to the extent of his identification. However, the trial court failed to give him a fresh opportunity under Section 313 CrPC, it was said. The apparent inconsistencies in the various statements of the survivor was also raised as a ground by Dorphang to assail the judgment.

Deliberating on the issue of minority, the bench observed that it was the consistent assertion of the survivor in her statements and the case run by the prosecution that the girl was below 15 years at the time of the incident that took place in Umiam. Despite such position, no meaningful question was put to the survivor in course of her elaborate cross-examination, to cast any doubt as to her minority at the time of the incident. Though a belated application was filed, the Court said, it was based on a false certificate issued by a school which the survivor never attended.

"The trial court, in the judgment on such aspect referred to high authorities of the Supreme Court instructing that the parents of a survivor were the best witnesses to indicate the age of the survivor",the bench underscored.

Dealing with the other contention that the trial court had consulted records pertaining to the investigation relating to the first FIR, the bench observed that the intention behind looking into the FIR pertaining to incident at Madanryting was to conclusively identify Dorphang as an accused, since the survivor was not called upon to identify him in court during her deposition. 

"Considering that a thorough examination under Section 313 of the Code had been previously concluded and that the appellant was afforded a chance to cross-examine the further witnesses called but was not presented a second opportunity under Section 313 of the Code would not vitiate the conviction or the course of action adopted by the trial court", the bench reasoned while rejecting the contention. 

Looking at the manner in which the survivor described to have been treated by Dorphang, and citing lack of any redeeming feature in the defence, the bench recorded, 

"There does not appear to be any glaring infirmity in the judgment of conviction or the consequent sentence pronounced against the appellant on the basis thereof. The trial court dealt with the material before it at great length and justly arrived at the right conclusion by using the appropriate tools of assessment". 

So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, the bench noted that Dorphang was about 52 years old at the time and by imposing a sentence of 25 years of imprisonment, the trial court has ensured that by the time he is let loose again in society, "his libido would have been sufficiently lessened by age and adequately chastened by the punishment and he will then no longer be able to unleash his lust or indulge in any further virile bravado."

Finally, the Court directed the State to ensure the continued well-being of the survivor, at least till she reaches the age of 25. It added,

“The fine, if paid, and a total amount of compensation not less than Rs.20 lakh, should be provided by the state to the survivor by way of investments that would mature on a periodic basis for her to receive the same. In other words, the State will pay a further Rs.5 lakh to the survivor by way of compensation, in addition to the sum ofRs.15 lakh that she receives from the fine,” .

The court further directed that the State will also be responsible for taking care of all the medical needs of the survivor free of cost and befitting a Grade-II officer of the State for at least the next 20 years.

If there is any special programme or working opportunity that is available or for which the survivor qualifies or if there is any late education programme for women where the survivor may be accommodated, the State should provide all assistance to the survivor to lead a remaining normal and healthy life, the Court ordered.

Case Title: Julius Kitbok Dorphang Vs State of Meghalaya & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 16

Click Here To Read/Download The Order