Photo Courtesy: India Today Group
Shillong: A court in Meghalaya’s East Jaintia Hills sentenced Comming Massar to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment for a 2020 child sexual abuse case. The Special Judge (POCSO) in Khliehriat delivered the sentence on August 31, 2026, following an investigation by WPI O Tyngkan. Massar faced charges under Section 376(3) and 506 of the IPC alongside POCSO Act sections 5(l), 5(n), and 6. He must pay a total of Rs 35,000 in fines.
Separately, the Meghalaya High Court upheld a conviction for a 2015 assault on a 12-year-old girl in Shillong. A division bench led by Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere confirmed the three-year prison term but reduced the fine from Rs 5,000 to Rs 1,000. During the trial, the survivor testified that the accused "caught hold of me" and touched her inappropriately at home. The court rejected defense claims of unexplained delays, citing the family’s initial report to the Rangbah Shnong.
In a third ruling on September 16, 2026, the High Court set aside the 10-year conviction of Emanuel Marwein. The bench found the prosecution failed to prove identity beyond reasonable doubt in the 2017 case. While the survivor identified Marwein in court, medical records linked the assault to a different man identified as Phring Monday Marwein. Discrepancies regarding the date of the FIR and the letters submitted as evidence further weakened the case. The court ordered Marwein’s immediate release and the refund of all deposited fines.
Updated at 17th September 2026 at 2:00pm
In the 2015 assault case, the High Court clarified that the convict will be eligible for the Remission Policy of 2026 where applicable. The court also specified that the fine reduction includes a change in the default sentence, which was cut to seven days of jail time.
Regarding the Emanuel Marwein case, court records show the original conviction stemmed from a 2018 trial registered as Special (POCSO) Case No. 25 of 2018 in West Khasi Hills. The High Court specifically noted that the survivor's letter used for the initial complaint was dated June 28, 2017, while the FIR hit the books on June 8, 2017, creating a timeline mismatch that the prosecution could not reconcile.
Updated at 17th September 2026 at 2:15pm
Records from the East Jaintia Hills police specify that the 25-year sentence handed to Comming Massar applies strictly to the IPC Section 376(3) conviction, while the additional five years of imprisonment stems from the criminal intimidation charge under Section 506. The total fine of Rs 35,000 remains split between these two counts, with Rs 25,000 for the sexual assault and Rs 10,000 for the intimidation charge. Special Judge B. Khriam presided over the case, which saw a chargesheet filed on November 18, 2021.
Regarding the Emanuel Marwein case, the High Court bench included Justice W. Diengdoh. The acquittal highlighted that while the victim identified the appellant in court, her initial medical exam noted the assailant was known to her only as "Mama." The name Phring Monday Marwein was provided by relatives, not the survivor. Furthermore, the letter submitted as the basis for the FIR failed to identify the accused by name, deepening the evidentiary void that led to the court overturning the October 2022 conviction from the Nongstoin trial court.
Updated at 18th September 2026 at 9:48am
Lam Shylla, the convict in the 2015 Shillong case, was 48 years old at the time of the incident. Testimony from the survivor’s younger brother bolstered the conviction, as he told the court he caught the man sitting near his sister and quickly withdrawing his hand upon being spotted. The survivor's age was verified using a birth certificate from the Diengpasoh Primary Health Centre.
In the case of Emanuel Marwein, the trial court had originally hit him with an additional two-year term for criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC on top of his 10-year POCSO sentence. The High Court ruling clarified that the medical records cited the assailant as someone known only as Mama, and that the specific name Phring Monday Marwein was provided to police by the survivor's relatives rather than the survivor herself.
Comments