Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1357 (GAU)

C. Lalramliana v. State of Mizoram

2015-10-16

M.R.PATHAK

body2015
ORDER M.R. Pathak, J. - This criminal Appeal from jail is preferred by the accused/appellant C. Lalramliana being aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 09.10.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lunglei Judicial District, Lunglei, in the Criminal Trial No. 249/2011, Registered No. 10/2012, arising out of Lunglei Police Station (District-Lunglei) Case No. 177 of 2011 by which the appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for another 1 (one) month, by setting off the period of detention already undergone by him as an Under Trial Prisoner during the investigation and trial of the said case against the period of conviction under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The prosecution case, as it emerges from the First Information Report dated 04.09.2011 (Exhibit-PI) lodged by the informant victim Lalramhrili, is that around 06:00 p.m., she was raped at her own house at Bazar Veng, Lunglei by the accused appellant Ramliana for which she got hurt and that she, being a widow, is very much aggrieved by the said act of the accused. 3. On receipt of the said FIR, Lunglei Police Station Case No. 177 of 2011 under Sections 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused/appellant. 4. During investigation, police arrested the FIR named accused appellant on 4.9.2011, visited the place of occurrence, drawn its sketch map seized one white colored towel and one ladies half pant (Exhibit-P IV) found on the bed at the place of occurrence, sent both, the victim as well as the accused, for their necessary medical examinations, recorded the statements of the victim, other witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case & the accused under Section 161 Cr. P.C. On receipt of medical reports, (Exhibits-P II & III) and on completion of the investigation, finding sufficient evidence against him, the Investigating Officer vide Charge-Sheet No. 3D/6308-310 dated 25.11.2011 filed the charge sheet in the case under Sections 376(1) of the IPC against the accused/appellant (Exhibit-P II). P.C. On receipt of medical reports, (Exhibits-P II & III) and on completion of the investigation, finding sufficient evidence against him, the Investigating Officer vide Charge-Sheet No. 3D/6308-310 dated 25.11.2011 filed the charge sheet in the case under Sections 376(1) of the IPC against the accused/appellant (Exhibit-P II). The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lunglei on 28.11.2011 committed the said case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Lunglei and accordingly, Sessions Case being Criminal Trial No. 249 of 2011, was registered. 5. For allegedly committing rape on the victim by the accused/appellant, the learned Sessions Judge Lunglei on 01.02.2012 framed charge under Section 376(1) IPC against him, which was read over and explained to him, to which, the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such the trial commenced. 6. In order to bring home the charges, against the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined 11 (eleven) witnesses on its behalf and the defence cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. The statement of the accused/ appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 10.06.2013, wherein he admitted of having sexual intercourse with the victim, but submitted that with her consent and also stated that he would adduce Defence Evidence. Thereafter, one defence witness was examined, who was also cross examined by the prosecution. 7. The learned Sessions Judge, Aizawl upon appreciation of the evidences adduced by both the prosecution & the defence, recorded the impugned judgment of conviction as aforesaid and hence, the present appeal. 8. We have heard Mr. Zochhuana, learned Amicus Curiae, for the accused/appellant and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mizoram representing the State. 9. Mr. Zochhuana, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant stated that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim informant with her consent only and he did not commit any rape on her and that the informant made false allegation about the same against him and as such he urged-that the sentence against the accused/appellant is liable to be set aside and quashed. 10. On the other hand, Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supporting the judgment and order of conviction, submitted that prosecution has placed sufficient materials to prove the guilt of the accused. 11. 10. On the other hand, Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supporting the judgment and order of conviction, submitted that prosecution has placed sufficient materials to prove the guilt of the accused. 11. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties in the present case and perused the evidence that were adduced by the parties in the above noted Sessions Case, apart from the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court. 12. In order to appreciate the arguments, advanced by the learned counsels appearing for both the parties and to examine the correctness of the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction, it will be appropriate to briefly scrutinise the evidence on record. 13. P.W. 1, the informant victim in her deposition submitted that she got married in the year 1992 and has four children from her marriage, but in 2008/2009 she got divorced with her husband. She stated that she has a grocery shop where she sells Kuhva. She also stated that the accused wife is related to her family and by that she knew him, who along with his friend visited her around noon on the date of the incident, went out within a short period and the accused visited her alone in the evening. She further stated that though the accused told her that he would go to Lunglei, hut he did not leave her residence till late in the evening and played with her. It is when she went to start cooking, he locked the door, came to her and touched her and when she went towards the door to open it, the accused caught hold of her and forcibly raped her. She also stated that though she shouted for help, hut as it was raining heavily, no one heard her cry and the accused threatened her that if she does not surrender, he would made her to struggle whole night and even kill her and being afraid, she could not resist him from his such bad act. She also stated that though she shouted for help, hut as it was raining heavily, no one heard her cry and the accused threatened her that if she does not surrender, he would made her to struggle whole night and even kill her and being afraid, she could not resist him from his such bad act. She also stated that while raping her, the accused inserted his finger in her anus and also compelled her to suck his penis and in the meantime as one man named Kapkima called her from outside, she moved away from the accused, by wearing a towel ran towards the door, opened the same and told him that she has been raped by the accused and also informed her neighbours about the fact how the accused raped her. The victim informant also stated that it is the accused who rang the police station by his cell phone and also passed his phone to her to talk to her elder sister who in turn informed police and when police came to the place of the incident, both she and accused followed them to the police station, where she narrated the incident how the accused raped her and accordingly an FIR was written by some other, in which she put her signature, but she stated that she did not read over it before signing it. In her cross examination the informant victim the PW.1 admitted that she knew the accused before the incident, that she did not read the FIR and is not aware what is written on it. But she denied the suggestions that she did not object when the accused played with her with his hand, that the accused did not raped her and that with her consent, the accused had intercourse with her. 14. PW.2, Lalfakthanga brother of the victim in his deposition stated that in the late evening of the date of the incident, Kapkima went and told him that his sister, i.e. the victim who stays near to his house living there alone by running a grocery shop, is facing trouble. Getting that information, he came to the place of occurrence (victim's residence), saw gathering of people around her house who tried to assault the accused, but on his request they stopped from the same. Getting that information, he came to the place of occurrence (victim's residence), saw gathering of people around her house who tried to assault the accused, but on his request they stopped from the same. He also stated that police came to the place of occurrence on being informed by the accused himself by his mobile phone and after arrival of police, the victim and the accused followed them to the police station and submitted FIR therein. Though the said witness submitted that it was raining on that evening, the same was objected by the defence. In his cross examination the said PW.2 denied the suggestion that he falsely implicated the accused and that during the relevant time it was not raining. 15. PW.3, Tlanzari, the elder sister of the victim, who stays near the victim's house in her deposition stated that she was informed by some children that her said sister met with an accident, she hurriedly came there, where her sister informed her about the incident and it is the accused who himself, through his mobile phone, called the police to the place of occurrence and on their arrival, they followed them to the police station, wherein her said sister submitted the FIR. In her cross examination. PW.3 denied the suggestion that she falsely implicated the accused and at the time of incident it was not raining heavily. 16. PW.4, Lalawmawia, who was the president of Branch YMA, Vanhne at the relevant time, in his deposition stated that during late evening of the date of the incident he was called to go to the residence of the victim and on his arrival he saw many people gathered around there, where he was reported that the accused raped the victim and accordingly he reported the incident to the Lunglei police station over phone, at the request of the relatives of the victim. In his cross PW.4 stated that he was not present at the time of incident, did not see any unusual manner or character of the victim, to his knowledge the accused did not sustain injuries and denied that he has falsely deposed before the Court. 17. PW.5, Zoramthangi, who is also a neighbour of the victim deposed that victim leaves alone in one residential house, which can accommodate one, about 30 to 40 feet away from her house. 17. PW.5, Zoramthangi, who is also a neighbour of the victim deposed that victim leaves alone in one residential house, which can accommodate one, about 30 to 40 feet away from her house. On the date of the incident around late evening and about the dusk time, it was raining heavily she heard a sound of human shouting, which she could not ascertain and thought some young men were playing in the YMA Hall not far from her house and after some time she was informed by her neighbour that the victim was raped by the accused. In her cross examination, PW.5 stated that though she heard a sound, but she presumed that it was coming from YMA Hall, Vanhne and that she cannot differentiate whether the said sound was a male voice or not also stated that she cannot say the exact time when she heard such sound. She denied the suggestion that she has falsely implicated the accused. 18. PW.6, namely. Kapkima in his evidence deposed that on the evening of the date of incident, after his meal, he went it) the residence of the victim to buy kuhva and found her wearing a towel. Then she called one person inside the room and she whispered in his ear that the present accused raped her and asked him to call her younger brother who lives nearby her residence and she herself went call Pu Roliana (PW.7) and accordingly he went to call her said brother. In his cross examination, PW.6 stated that he went to the store of the victim to purchase kuhva, knocked her door, which she opened and he saw her wearing a towel and a shirt. In his cross examination, he also stated that he did not see any tom clothes or any physical injury on the body of the victim and he did not enquire her properly. He also submitted that there was residential houses close to the residence of the victim intervened by fowl house of about 10 feet and to his knowledge the victim was married twice to different person and that when she entered her house there was showering of rain. But he denied the suggestion that deposed falsely. 19. He also submitted that there was residential houses close to the residence of the victim intervened by fowl house of about 10 feet and to his knowledge the victim was married twice to different person and that when she entered her house there was showering of rain. But he denied the suggestion that deposed falsely. 19. PW.7, namely, Roliana in his evidence deposed that in the evening of the date of the incident it was raining heavily and just after the rain stopped he while went out to attend the Church for Sunday evening prayer, the victim who lived near his house and was wearing a towel told him that the accused raped her and as such he went to victim's house, but did not see the accused in her sitting room and it was when the victim called him. He came out from the bed room and by that some people gathered there and thereafter he left for the church. Police who came to the place, later enquired from her about the matter. In his cross examination, he stated that the victim's house is about 50 feet away from his residence, where the victim, who was married twice and have four children, leaves alone in her said house and in good weather day had the victim shouted loudly, neighbours could have heard her. He in his cross examination also stated that he did not see any injury on the body of the victim and also did not see any torn on her clothes, lie denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely. 20. The prosecution examined Dr. Lalthlamuana, PW.8, the Doctor who examined both, the victim as well as the accused. In his evidence, he deposed that on 5.9.2011, while he was posted at Civil Hospital, Lunglei on the requisition of police, he conducted the medical examination of the victim around noon and the victim told him that she was raped by the accused on the previous day around 5/6 p.m., did not find any external injury on her body, did not find any injury/bruises on her genital region, except white discharge and that Exhibit P-II is the medical report of the victim signed by him. Said PW.8, the Doctor also deposed that he conducted medical examination of the accused on 05.09.2011, did not find any external injury, except swallow' abrasion inside the skin of the penis and sign of candidiases and that Exhibit P-III is the medical report of the accused signed by him. In his cross examination, the PW.8 deposed that white discharge is common to female and is not necessarily related to sexual intercourse. He also stated that there was no sign of recent intercourse in the genital part of the victim. The doctor in his cross examination further stated that abrasion inside the skin of penis may also happen due to friction at the time of intercourse as the man had already candidiases and that candidiases is not necessarily related to sexual intercourse. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely. 21. PW.9, namely. Rosy Lalfamkimi, an ASI of Police, one of the seizure witness, in her evidence deposed she along with Ramthanzuala (PW.10) accompanied C. Ramnunmawii, S.L of Police (P W. 11) and she seized a white color towel and a ladies half pant, which belongs to the victim, from her house vide Material Exhibit-1. In her cross examination, PW.9 deposed that all the seized articles that she saw were not tom and it did not contain any stain and that she put her signature in the seizure memo in the residence of the victim only. 22. PW.10, Ramthanzuala, an ASI of Police, is the other the seizure witness of the case and he deposed as same as that of PW.9. 23. PW. 11, C. Ramnunmawii, S.L of Police is the Investigating Officer of the case. In his evidence he deposed that on the date of incident on 04.09.2011 at early night on receipt of information from mobile that the present accused committed rape on the victim he went to the place of occurrence, conducted the inquiry at the night itself, took the accused person and victim to the police station, examined the victim and the accused, seized the towel worn by the victim and her half pant that was torn, which according to the victim got tom due to her struggle against the accused. The I.O. of the case stated that accused admitted before him that he had sexual intercourse with the victim but with the plea that with her consent. The I.O. of the case stated that accused admitted before him that he had sexual intercourse with the victim but with the plea that with her consent. As during investigation he prima facie found involvement of the accused in the case as alleged, accordingly he filed Charge Sheet against the accused under Section 376(1) IPC. In his cross examination, the Investigation Officer. PW. 11 submitted that the nearest neighbour of the victim is about 6 feet away; statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the medical report; during his investigation he did not find any physical injury to the prosecutrix; that the accused had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix with different positions and the FIR of the case was written in the Lunglei Police Station, where the prosecutrix gave her signature. He denied the suggestion that he falsely deposed before the Court. 24. The DW. 1 Lalawmawia, president of Branch YMA, Vanhne at the relevant time, in his evidence deposed that the prosecutrix earlier married twice and her 2nd husband died, then she returned to her village as a widow. As Kapkima told him that when he entered her house first, the victim did not report to him that she was raped by the accused and it was when the accused appeared from the room the victim told Kapkima about the same. He further stated that according to Kapkima, before he saw the accused, victim's behaviour and character was normal and she did not mention anything to him about rape. In his cross examination by the prosecution, said DW 1 stated that he did not see the accused and the victim alone in her residence and he did not visit victim's residence until he was called. 25. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded on 10.06.2013, the accused appellant admitted before the trial Judge that with her consent he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, denied the fact that he threatened her and also admitted of inserting finger in victims' anus and that as he heard somebody knocked on the door many times, he told the prosecutrix to open the door. He prayed for acquittal before the trial Judge, as he did not commit rape on the prosecutrix. 26. Mr. He prayed for acquittal before the trial Judge, as he did not commit rape on the prosecutrix. 26. Mr. Zochhuana, learned Amicus Curie appearing for the accused appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2001) 9 SCC 452 which is perused and considered. 27. In the case of Dilip v. Stum of M.P. reported in (2001) 9 SCC 452 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:- "The law is well settled that the prosecutrix in a sexual offence is not an accomplice and there is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon and made the basis of conviction unless corroborated in material particulars. However, the rule about the admissibility of corroboration should be present to the mind of the Judge. In State of H.P. v. Gian Chand on a review of decisions of this Court, it was held that conviction for an offence of rape can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances such as the report of chemical examination etc., if the same is found to be natural, trustworthy and worth being relied on. This Court relied upon the following statement of law from State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh SCC (para 21): "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 case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations...." 28. In the case of State of U.P. v. Chhotey Lal, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 550 , Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to 'consent' in a case of rape has held that:- "20. Broadly, this Court has accepted and followed the judgments referred to in the above judicial dictionaries as regards the meaning of the word "consent" as occurring in Section 375 IPC. It is not necessary to refer to all the decisions and the reference to two decisions of this Court shall suffice. Broadly, this Court has accepted and followed the judgments referred to in the above judicial dictionaries as regards the meaning of the word "consent" as occurring in Section 375 IPC. It is not necessary to refer to all the decisions and the reference to two decisions of this Court shall suffice. In State of H.P. v. Mango Ram, a three-Judge Bench of this Court while dealing with the aspect of "consent" for the purposes of Section 375 IPC held at SCC pp. 230-31 of the Report as under: (SCC para 13) "13. ... Submission of the body under the fear of terror cannot be construed as a consented sexual act. Consent for the purpose of Section 375 requires voluntary participation not only after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act but after having fully exercised the choice between resistance and assent. Whether there was consent or not, is to be ascertained only on a careful study of all relevant circumstances." 21. In Uday v. State of Karnataka this Court put a word of caution that there is no strait-jacket formula for determining whether consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is voluntary, or whether it is given under a misconception of fact. The Court at SCC p. 57 of the Report stated: (SCC para 21) "21.... In the ultimate analysis, the tests laid down by the courts provide at best guidance to the judicial mind while considering a question of consent, but the court must, in each case, consider the evidence before it and the surrounding circumstances, before reaching a conclusion, because each case has its own peculiar facts which may have a bearing on the question whether the consent was voluntary, or was given under a misconception of fact." 22. In the backdrop of the above legal position, with which we are in respectful agreement, the evidence of the prosecutrix needs to be analysed and examined carefully. But, before we do that, we state, as has been repeatedly slated by this Court, that a woman who is a victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime. Her evidence cannot be tested with suspicion as that of an accomplice. As a matter of fact, the evidence of the prosecutrix is similar to the evidence of an injured complainant or witness. Her evidence cannot be tested with suspicion as that of an accomplice. As a matter of fact, the evidence of the prosecutrix is similar to the evidence of an injured complainant or witness. The testimony of the prosecutrix, if found to be reliable, by itself, may be sufficient to convict the culprit and no corroboration of her evidence is necessary. In prosecutions of rape, the law does not require corroboration. The evidence of the prosecutrix may sustain a conviction. It is only by way of abundant caution that the court may look for some corroboration so as to satisfy its conscience and rule out any false accusations". 29. It is settled law that the presence or absence of injury on the body of the rape victim is relevant to decide whether the coitus was consensual or not. It may be recalled that in view of Section 114-A, Evidence Act inserted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1983, if the rape victim says in her evidence that she did not consent to the sexual intercourse, the onus to prove consent lies on the accused. The fact of sexual intercourse however, is required to be established by the prosecution at any rate and in doing so the presence or absence of injury on the body of the woman concerned is material. In the case of Pratap Misra v. State of Orissa, reported in (1977) 3 SCC 41 , Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to 'consent' in a case of rape has held that- "22. This is all the evidence that has been led in this case. After going through the entire evidence carefully we are clearly of the opinion that the evidence in this case shows that the appellants had no doubt committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix but such an intercourse was done with the tacit consent of the prosecutrix and the connivance of her husband. There is no material at all to prove the allegation of rape, the medical evidence does not support it, the circumstances proved in the case militate against the case of such a theory and the conduct of PWs 1 and 2 itself is inconsistent with the allegation of rape. Both the courts below, while appreciating the evidence have completely overlooked the telling circumstances and the glaring errors found in the prosecution case which have necessitated its rejection in to. Both the courts below, while appreciating the evidence have completely overlooked the telling circumstances and the glaring errors found in the prosecution case which have necessitated its rejection in to. The courts below appear to have presumed that the allegation of rape was true without there being sufficient evidence and without even examining the possibility of consent which was not only present in this case but almost proved and probabilised by the circumstances discussed by us and which appear from the prosecution evidence itself. We are, therefore, satisfied that the courts below have made an absolutely wrong approach to this case, have failed to consider the striking circumstances which demolish the prosecution case and have committed gross error of procedure in not examining the possibility of consent merely on the ground that the same was not pleaded by the accused. Such an approach, therefore, clearly vitiates the judgments of the courts below". 30. From the evidence discussed above it is seen that PW.5, Zoramthangi, in her evidence deposed that the victim leaves alone in one residential house, which can accommodate one. But PW.7, Roliana in his evidence deposed that when he went to the victim's house, he did not see the accused in her sitting room and it was when the victim called him, he came out from bed room. Again PW.6, Kapkima in his evidence deposed that when he went to the residence of the victim to buy kuhva after his meal in the evening, he found her wearing a towel, then she called one person inside the room and thereafter she whispered in the ear of said Kapkima that the accused raped her and asked him to call her younger brother. Said Kapkima also stated that on knocking, when victim opened the door, he saw that victim was wearing a towel and a shirt and he did not see any torn clothes or any physical injury on her body. He further submitted that there was residential houses close to the residence of the victim intervened by fowl house of about 10 feet. It is also seen that when the prosecutrix opened the door for said Kapkima, she did not make any hue & cry for her alleged rape by the accused or did not ran out of her home. The Investigation Officer, PW. 11 submitted that the nearest neighbour of the victim resides about 6 feet away. It is also seen that when the prosecutrix opened the door for said Kapkima, she did not make any hue & cry for her alleged rape by the accused or did not ran out of her home. The Investigation Officer, PW. 11 submitted that the nearest neighbour of the victim resides about 6 feet away. The Doctor PW.8 who physically examined the prosecutrix after the incident, neither found any external injury on her body nor found any injury/bruises on her genital region, except white discharge, which according to her, is common to female and further stated that the same is not necessarily related to sexual intercourse. In her evidence said Doctor clearly stated that there was no sign of recent intercourse in the genital part of the victim. Further, though the Investigating Officer, PW. 11 stated that he seized tom half pant of the victim from her house, which according to victim, as stated before him, got torn because of her struggle against the accused; but the seizure witnesses, PWs. 9 & 10 in their evidence clearly stated that the seized articles that they saw were not torn and did not contain any stain. The prosecution also did not send the seized cloth material of the victim or the accused for its necessary' FSL test. Moreover, the victim in her deposition also stated that the accused was playing with her. 31. In the present case, the prosecution case rests solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix and the prosecution has tried to seek corroboration from the testimony of other prosecution witnesses to whom the prosecutrix narrated the incident soon after the alleged commission of rape on her; but the medical evidence does not lend any positive corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix. The age of the prosecutrix was about 40 years at the time of incident. The fact remains that she was not just a child who would have surrendered herself to a forced sexual assault without offering any resistance whatsoever. Without going into testing the truthfulness of the explanation offered by the prosecutrix that because of being overpowered by the accused person, she was not able to resist, the fact remains that the "probabilities factor" operates against the prosecutrix. Without going into testing the truthfulness of the explanation offered by the prosecutrix that because of being overpowered by the accused person, she was not able to resist, the fact remains that the "probabilities factor" operates against the prosecutrix. It is in evidence that the nearby house of the prosecutrix is about 6 feet and 10 feet away and even she cried for help but not heard due to rain is not fully reliable. From the prosecution evidence it is observed that as the prosecutrix informed others, more particularly to PWs. 6 & 7 about her rape by the accused and when they entered her house, said accused came out only when the prosecutrix called him, but he did not make any move to run away from the place of occurrence. There are discrepancies in the prosecution evidences and moreover, prosecutrix evidence is not corroborated by other material evidence. 32. It is not the case of the defence that the accused did not have the sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix/victim, but he stated that it was with her consent. But from the evidence discussed above and materials as available on record, the Court is finding it difficult to accept the truthfulness of the version of the prosecutrix about the allegation of the prosecutrix that the accused committed rape on her and/or any sexual assault as alleged was committed on her; in view of the fact that her narration of the incident becomes basically infirm on account of being contradicted by the statement of the Doctor who medically examined her and her medical evidence available on record. As such the Court is not satisfied on the correctness of the story as told by the prosecutrix and the Court find it difficult to hold the prosecutrix in the case as one on whose testimony an implicit reliance can be placed. 33. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned judgment & order of conviction of the accused-appellant under Sections 376(1) of the Indian penal Code dated 09.10.2013 as recorded by the trial Court i.e. by learned Sessions Judge. 33. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned judgment & order of conviction of the accused-appellant under Sections 376(1) of the Indian penal Code dated 09.10.2013 as recorded by the trial Court i.e. by learned Sessions Judge. Lunglei Judicial District, Lunglei, in the Criminal Trial No. 24.9/2011, arising out of Lunglei Police Station Case No. 177 2011 is hereby set aside & quashed and the accused appellant is honorably acquitted of the charge framed against him and he shall be set at liberty forthwith; if not required to be detained in connection with any other offence. 34. The valuable assistance rendered by both Mr. Zochhuana, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused appellant and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mizoram representing the State are appreciable. The learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Zochhuana shall be entitled to Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) towards his hearing fees, which shall be paid to him by the State Legal Services Authority, Mizoram. Aizawl, upon production of a copy of this order, which the Registry of the Court shall furnish to him free of cost.