1. This criminal appeal is preferred by the convict, Kapchema alias Pachema from jail custody, forwarded by the Superintendent of District Jail, Lunglei, who is suffering sentence in connection with Crl. TV. No.326/2008 under section 376(2)(f)/511 of IPC, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.6.2011, passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Lunglei, whereby he was sentenced to suffer RI for 3 years and a fine of Rs.2,000, in default of payment, to suffer SI for 2 months. 2. Since it is a Jail appeal filed by the convict, learned counsel, Mr. Lalfakawma was appointed as amicus curiae to assist this court in the disposal of appeal and to argue the case on behalf of the appellant. I have heard learned amicus curiae for the appellant and learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Lalsawirema for the State respondent. 3. Brief fact, leading to the criminal trial against the appellant is that on 12.12.2008 the informant, Lalmalsawma (PW1) and his wife, Zozamluaii (PW3) went out of their house for jhum cultivation leaving their three children of whom the eldest one was seven years old in the house, asking Lalhriatpuii (PW4), the cousin sister of Zozamluaii (PW3) to take care of the children and the children were playing in the neighbourhood. At about 3.30/4 p.m., the accused Pachema alias Kapchema allured the prosecutrix (name kept withheld), the girl aged about five years (PW2), the daughter of PWs.1 and 3 that he will give rupees ten to her to purchase something eatable and taken her away in an abandoned place and put off her pants and then took her on his lap, opened his trouser and pressed his penis in the vagina of the prosecutrix and, as a result, the prosecutrix felt pain. The accused again took her to a different place and again pressed his penis in her vagina and also inserted the penis in her mouth and asked her to swallow it. Thereafter, the accused left her near the house of PW4. The prosecutrix did not disclose the fact on that day but she vomited during night time as the accused did oral sex with her. On the following day, i.e., on 13.12.2008, on query by PWs 1 and 3, the prosecutrix, narrated the occurrence wherefrom she got the money and the act committed by accused and, immediately thereafter, PW1 lodged FIR with the O/C Lunglei PS. On the following day, i.e., on 13.12.2008, on query by PWs 1 and 3, the prosecutrix, narrated the occurrence wherefrom she got the money and the act committed by accused and, immediately thereafter, PW1 lodged FIR with the O/C Lunglei PS. and accordingly Lunglei P.S. Case No.231 dated 13.12.2008 under section 376(2)(f) of IPC was registered and investigation was taken up. On that very day itself, in course of investigation, the prosecutrix was examined by PW7, the Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital, Lunglei and report was collected by I.O. The prosecutrix was produced before the Magistrate, 1st Class, Lunglei for recording her statement under section 164 of Cr.PC on 15.12.2008 and her statement was recorded. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against accused Kapchema @ Pachema for commission of offence punishable under section 376(2)(f)/377 of IPC. 4. In course of trial, learned Sessions Judge on 2.3.2009 framed charge against the accused for commission of offence, punishable under section 376(2)(f) of IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As I find on record, in course of trial, prosecution examined seven witnesses including the prosecutrix as PW2. PWs.1 and 3 are the father and mother of the prosecutrix. PW4 is the cousin sister of PW3, under whose care the minor children were left by PWs.1 and 3. PW5 is the brother of PW2, the prosecutrix, and aged about seven years. PW6 is a witness to the seizure and PW7 is the Medical Officer, who examined the victim. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.PC and in support of his defense the accused also examined three witnesses, namely, Ms. Lianchunga (DW1), Laltlansangi (DW2) and Lalhuthangi (DW3). Defense case, so far appears from the trend of cross-examination as well as from the statement of the accused, made while examination under section 313 of Cr.PC, is that the accused and parents of the prosecutrix are close neighbours and that on the date of alleged occurrence, for the whole day the accused was playing cards with others and while he was playing cards, the prosecutrix went there and he gave Rs.10 to her to purchase something eatables and thereafter he did not meet the prosecutrix. He had no scope to commit the offence as he was busy in playing cards for the whole day. He had no scope to commit the offence as he was busy in playing cards for the whole day. The allegation of rape was false. 5. Let us first see what the Apex Court has observed regarding the duty of the court while trying a case of rape. In the case of Kundula Bala v. State, 1993 Crl. LJ 1635: (1993)2 SCC 684 , the Apex Court has observed, thus : "The role of courts under the circumstances assumes greater importance and it is expected that the courts would deal with such cases in a more realistic manner and not allow the criminals to escape on account of procedural technicalities or insignificant lacunas in evidence as otherwise the criminals would receive encouragement and the victims of crimes would be totally discouraged by the crimes going unpunished. The courts are expected to be sensitive in the cases involving crimes against woman." In the case of Bodhisattwa Goutam v. Sitbhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 922 , the Apex Court has observed, thus : "Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman (victim). It is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is only by her sheer will power that she rehabilitates herself in the society which, on coming to know of the rape, looks down upon her in derision and contempt. Rape is, therefore, a most hated crime. It is a crime against basic human rights and is violative of the victim's most cherished of the Fundamental Rights, namely, the right to life contained in article 21." In the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjebhal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753 , the Apex Court has observed, thus : "A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had even occurred. She would be conscious of the danger being looked down by the society including by her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbours. She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives, and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. She would be conscious of the danger being looked down by the society including by her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbours. She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives, and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. If she is unmarried, she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family. In view of these and similar factors the victims and their relatives are not too keen to bring the culprit to book. And when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light there is a built-in assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated." In the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1393 , the Apex Court observed, thus : "Of late, crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. It is an irony that while we are celebrating Women's rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. We must remember that a racist not only violates the victim's privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murdered destroys the physical body of the victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. The courts, therefore, shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused, on charges of rape. They must deal with such cares with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a care and not get swayed by minor contradictions or _insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the care of an accomplice. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the care of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the back ground of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestation." In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gangula S. Murthy, AIR 1997 SC 1588 , the Apex Court has observed, thus : "Charge of Rape - Duty of court - Court must while trying accused on charge of rape show great sensitivity - They should examine broader probabilities and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in statement of witnesses which are not of a fatal nature to through out allegation of rape - This is all the more important as of late there is rise in crime against women in general and rape in particular." 6. Keeping in mind the above observations made by the hon'ble Apex Court and the observations made-by this court in catena of decisions, let us first see what the prosecutrix has stated in her deposition before court. As already stated the prosecutrix was examined as PW2, in her deposition before the court, she has stated, thus : "While I was playing with friends and making toy-house, Sh. Pachema came and said "Siami, come, I will give you money". Then I followed him. We approached the cattle shed of aunty Ma-I. After that we reached the kitchen of grandpa Kunga and he locked the door. We reached a pile of firewood and told me "Take off your pants". Then I did. He laid me down beside the pile of firewood and pushed his penis into my private parts. It was very painful. He then pushed his penis into my mouth. But he did not drop his semen. After doing this he gave me Rs.10. While we were on the way home, he made me touch his penis. He said "do not tell anybody, if you do so I will ship you". Then I went home. My elder sister Ramthani said "let me keep your money". But he did not drop his semen. After doing this he gave me Rs.10. While we were on the way home, he made me touch his penis. He said "do not tell anybody, if you do so I will ship you". Then I went home. My elder sister Ramthani said "let me keep your money". I asked my sister not to tell anybody and I told her everything that happened to me. The next morning I felt pain in my private parts and I told everything to my parents, that Sh. Pachema had sex with me. The previous night while I was sleeping with my father I vomited three times as the though of Pachema's penis in my mouth was very distasteful." Her cross-examination was declined by the defense, which is reflected in para 6 of the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. On perusal of the deposition of PWs.1 and 3, I find that they have substantially corroborated the statement of PW2. PW4 stated that she found the accused taking away the prosecutrix holding her hands and she also found Rs.10 with the prosecutrix in the evening when the prosecutrix returned to her house. She stated that the prosecutrix did not tell her anything about committing of rape on her and she came to know later on. PW7, the Medical Officer examined the victim on 13.12.2008 at about 1.15 p.m. and he stated that on that day while he was on casualty duty, the prosecutrix, aged about five years, was brought to him for examination in connection with alleged rape. He examined her at 1.15 p.m. on the same day. She changed her dresses but she did not take bath. There was no seminal stain, bruising or laceration and her hymen was also intact. He also examined her vomitus for spermatozoa since the accused was alleged to have oral sex with her. On examination, he did not find spermatozoa. His cross-examination was declined by defense. 7. The prosecutrix is an infant girl, aged about five years. No sexual character developed in her. It is quite natural that the prosecutrix understand nothing about sex or what the accused was doing with her. The accused is a man, aged 49 years. The act of the accused as alleged is nothing but a bestiality. 7. The prosecutrix is an infant girl, aged about five years. No sexual character developed in her. It is quite natural that the prosecutrix understand nothing about sex or what the accused was doing with her. The accused is a man, aged 49 years. The act of the accused as alleged is nothing but a bestiality. There was no animosity between the accused and the family of the prosecutrix, even to suggest that the parents planted the minor girl with a false allegation against the accused, though, such type of false allegation is very rare in our society. The defense evidence adduced does not inspire any confidence. DW1 stated that the accused was playing cards with him and others for the whole day and it was on 12.1.2008. PW3 also stated the date 12.1.2008. The incident occurred on 12.12.2008. So the defense evidence carries no value at all. Further PW1 is a close neighbour of the accused having good relation and PW3 is the sister-in-law of the accused. DW2 stated nothing to support the accused. So, defense evidence, therefore, carries no merit to create a den in the prosecution case. The evidence on record clearly makes out a case that the accused committed indecent sexual assault on the minor girl. 8. Learned amicus curiae, referring to several decisions of the hon'ble Apex Court and this court, drawn my attention that the evidence of a child witness should be taken to consideration with great care as a child witness can be easily tutored and such a witness may be used by others to harass or humiliate another. It is settled law that a child witness is a competent witness but as a rule of prudence the evidence of a child witness should be considered with great care and caution and normally the court should look with corroboration of the evidence of a child witness. In this case, the child-witness, herself, is the victim of the offence. She is not a mere witness to the occurrence but the victim herself. Though she appears to have aged five years but she narrated the occurrence very easily and spontaneously. The statements, recorded under section 164 of Cr.PC by the Magistrate and her deposition before the Sessions Judge, substantially, corroborate each other barring some minor discrepancies. She is not a mere witness to the occurrence but the victim herself. Though she appears to have aged five years but she narrated the occurrence very easily and spontaneously. The statements, recorded under section 164 of Cr.PC by the Magistrate and her deposition before the Sessions Judge, substantially, corroborate each other barring some minor discrepancies. Though no certificate was given by the learned Sessions Judge while recording on-oath statement of the child witness, it is presumed that learned Sessions Judge, before recording the statement of the prosecutrix, was satisfied that she was able to give a rational answer to the questions put to her. She was even not cross-examined by the defense. As already stated, there is no animosity between the parents of the prosecutrix and the accused to involve him with a false allegation. Under such circumstances, the prosecutrix, though an infant child, I find no reason to throw her statement over board only because she is a minor child. She has narrated about the occurrence, meeted out by the accused on her. Learned Sessions Judge carefully examined the evidence on record and arrived at a reasonable finding which, in my view, should not be disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case. The convict, being a grown up man committed a serious offence against a minor girl, and, therefore, does not deserve a lenient consideration. The punishment given by the learned Sessions Judge seems to be minimum and I find no reason to interfere. 9. The appeal accordingly stands dismissed. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of the judgment. A copy of the judgment may also be sent to the convict through Superintendent, District Jail, Lunglei. Learned amicus curiae shall be entitled to a fees of Rs.5,000 for conducting the case. _____________