Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1519 (GAU)

Zorammawia v. State of Mizoram

2017-12-08

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2017
JUDGMENT : Songkhupchung Serto, J. 1. This is a jail criminal appeal forwarded by Special Superintendent, Central Jail, Aizawl, directed against the judgment & Order dated 13.06.2016, passed in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2013/Criminal Trial No. 1802 of 2013 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, wherein the appellant was convicted under section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced to 7 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default thereof to 10 days S.I. Heard Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, the learned Amicus Curiae and also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 2. The facts of the case which led to the trial of the appellant and his conviction and sentence as stated above and which has led him to file this appeal are as follows:- On 08.10.2013, at around 3.30 p.m. a written FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix, resident of Dampa Rengpui, stating that at around 3:00 a.m. of 07.10.2013, while she was sleeping in her house, one Zorammawia of 5th Indian Reserve Police IRP (the convict/appellant) entered into her house, and gagged her mouth by his hand, and committed rape on her. As she was deaf, and her husband was not at home, she was not aware when the convict/appellant came into her house. Extremely aggrieved by the incident, she is requesting for taking legal action against the convict/appellant. Soon after, the FIR was registered, the place of occurrence was visited by the police and a sketch map of the same was drawn. The prosecutrix was examined and her statement was recorded. Witnesses were also examined by me I.O. and one Mizo puan was seized on which blood stain was present and the prosecutrix was sent to the medical officer of Primary Health Centre, West Phaileng. After the investigation was completed, a charge sheet was submitted under Section 376(i) and Section 448 of IPC against the convict/appellant. The convict/appellant denied the charged against him and claimed to be tried. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed 3 issues for determination. "a. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim on the morning of 07.10.2013 @ 3 AM in the residence of the victim? b. Whether such sexual intercourse with the victim was against her will or without her consent? c. Whether the accused is liable to be punished under Sections 376(1)/448 of IPC?" 3. "a. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim on the morning of 07.10.2013 @ 3 AM in the residence of the victim? b. Whether such sexual intercourse with the victim was against her will or without her consent? c. Whether the accused is liable to be punished under Sections 376(1)/448 of IPC?" 3. Thereafter, the prosecution examined eight P/Ws and after that the convict/appellant was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Addl. Senior Judge heard the parties and came to the conclusion that the convict/appellant was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376(i) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. of 7 years and to a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo 10 days S.I. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge are reproduced here below:- "Judgment & Order 7. As the prosecutrix could not speak and understand Mizo language, her deposition was recorded with the help of an interpreter, namely, Mandri Boty W/o. Dokhuma R/o. Chaltlang, Aizawl (presently holding the post of President, Bru Women's Federation, Mizoram) and the interpretation was recorded after administration of oath to the interpreter in terms of Sec. 282 CR PC. She appeared to be of rational understanding, her examination. 8. P.W. 1-The prosecutrix identified accused Zorammawia. On the night of incident, while she was sleeping in a separate room, the accused entered in, gagged her mouth and she awoke. As she had pain in her leg, she could not struggle much when the accused forced her to touch his male organ. Thereafter, the accused succeeded in penetrating his male organ into her private part. While struggling, her mouth was bleeding. There was seminal stain in her skirt and her brazier was torn which were seized by the police. The boy (her nephew who is mentally retarded) and the old woman who slept in another room also awoke and saw her. But, as they had fear she was told to sleep with the accused. At dawn, she crawled out form her house and went to the house of his brother Rinawma. She narrated the incident to Rinawma. On the following day, she came to know that the accused was from the IR Battalion. But, as they had fear she was told to sleep with the accused. At dawn, she crawled out form her house and went to the house of his brother Rinawma. She narrated the incident to Rinawma. On the following day, she came to know that the accused was from the IR Battalion. They also informed about the incident to Hmangaiha and requested him to go to her house with her elder brother since the accused was still lying naked in her house as he was still drunk. They also informed the Village Council authorities who advised them to go to the leaders of Women's Federation. Accordingly, they also informed the Women's Federation. She remained in the house of her elder brother Rinawma. At morning, when Rinawma and Hmangaiha went to her house they saw the accused lying naked and they woke him. In her knowledge, information was given to the police over phone. When the Police told them to compromise the matter and suggested that she should be paid Rs. 70,000/- but she wanted to take the matter according to law as she was a married woman. The FIR was written by representatives of local NGOs and Village Council in her house in presence of the Police. As far as she could remember, she had put her thumb impression in Police Station at West Phaileng. The FIR was proved at Ext. P-1 (objected by Ld. Defence Counsel on the ground that the witness did not state where she had put her thumb impression at West Phaileng PS). She put her thumb impression in a number of documents during investigation at the request of the Police. As she was illiterate, she put thumb impression. The Police seized hr skirt and brazier. The Doctor examined her. 9. On cross examination, the prosecutrix could not say at what time she had slept, but she know that she had slept very late due to pain in her leg. She admitted that some persons from IR Bn had seized liquor from her house. She sold liquor still. But, she denied that the accused and his friend had consumed liquor in her house on the night of the incident she did not know whether the accused was present when the liquor was seized from her house. She admitted that some persons from IR Bn had seized liquor from her house. She sold liquor still. But, she denied that the accused and his friend had consumed liquor in her house on the night of the incident she did not know whether the accused was present when the liquor was seized from her house. She admitted her statement before the police that the miscreant had entered into her room on the morning of 1.10.13 at around 3 Am. She further admitted as she was panicked to tell the accused to leave her house from the time the accused entered till she left for her brother's house. The accused continued to lie down even after she left her house till he was woken by the elder brother Rinawma and Hmangaiha. The distance between her house and that of the elder brother Rinawma and Hmangaiha. The distance between her house and that of her elder brother Rinawma would be about the length of two bamboos. She left her house immediately soon after the offence was committed she went back to her house in the morning, but as the accused was still sleeping she ran to the house of her brother. The content of the FIR was informed to her elder brother though it was not read out to her as she was partially deaf. She could hear the voice of the interpreter since the latter was standing close to her. The FIR was written by the representatives of NGOs along with her went to the West Phaileng PS. When the old women and the boy saw her with the accused, they were shivering. On the night of incident, she did not wear under pant since the swelling of her leg made her difficult to wear and remove it and as she had often to go toilet. She wore a skirt on that night. She denied that the police had not seized the skirt which she had worn on that night. The police did not take the Mizo puan since it was badly torn. She also denied she had taken up the case against the accused since the accused could not pay her Rs. 70,000/- as suggested by the Police. 10. In the instant case, the prosecutrix cannot be put on par with an accomplice, as she is a victim of the crime. She also denied she had taken up the case against the accused since the accused could not pay her Rs. 70,000/- as suggested by the Police. 10. In the instant case, the prosecutrix cannot be put on par with an accomplice, as she is a victim of the crime. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 of the Evidence Act and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The testimony of the prosecutrix that the accused committed rape upon her is found trustworthy, truthful and reliable inasmuch as her testimony cannot be shaken in her cross examination. In other words, no part of her testimony is found infirm and not trustworthy. It is not absolute not necessary that there should be corroboration of her evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that the circumstances appearing on the evidence on record disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely implicate the accused. 11. The Judgment of Apex Court in Maharashtra Vs. Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain reported in 1990 (1) SCC 550 at para 16 states as follows:-.................. 12. In the course of hearing, the learned Defence Counsel objected on the ground that the prosecutrix could say where she had put her thumb impression at West Phaileng P.S. it may be noted that the Police told them to compromise the matter and suggested that she should be paid Rs. 70,000/- but, she wanted take the matter according to law as she is a married woman. The Case I.O. P.W. 7 S.I. Lalchhuanawma recorded the statement of the prosecutrix on 7.10.2013 as in the police report, but he registered the FIR on 8.10.2016. Such delay of lodging the FIR was not fault on the part of the prosecutrix. However, it is not in dispute that the prosecutrix submitted the FIR at West Phaileng Police Station. 13. It is also in the course of hearing, the learned Defence Counsel vehemently argued that the case is doubtful inasmuch as seizure of mizo puan by the police was denied by the prosecutrix recorded by P.W. 7 SI C. Lalchhuanawma shows that one of the two seized articles was puan on which blood stains were found and not Mizo puan. Anyway, this minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Anyway, this minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. 14. P.W. 2 Rinawmi came to know the accused for the first time when the accused was medically examined at West Phaileng. She was the then President of Bru Women Federation (BWF) at Damparengpui. She is not related to the prosecutrix. She came to know about the incident from Rinawma, who informed her in a capacity of President of BWF. According to Rinawma, his sister, the prosecutrix was sexually assaulted by one personnel from Indian Reserve Police at early hour of that day around 3 Am. Rinawma also stated that even at that time the accused was still sleeping naked in the house of the prosecutrix and asked her to see him. Accordingly, she along with some other leaders of BWF went to the house of the prosecutrix to see that accused. But, by the time they reached the house of the prosecutrix the accused had already left. She also spoke to the prosecutrix. During those days, the leg of the prosecutrix was swollen and she could not walk. That prosecutrix told her that she was ravished as she could not move her legs so as to fight back the accused and as the accused even gagged her mouth. The prosecutrix also told her that her mouth was bleeding and there were drops of blood on the floor, and she saw the blood drops on the floor. She took photograph of the said blood drops in her mobile phone. When she asked her whether the accused actually had sexual intercourse with her, the victim replied in the affirmative, but the victim stated that she did not know whether the accused had ejaculated or not since she had struggled against the accused. They also asked the victim whether they wanted to compromise the matter outside or to lodge FIR voluntarily. The incident occurred while the husband of the prosecutrix told her that he had received summon, but he could not attend the court due to personal difficulties/illness. On cross examination, the prosecutrix and she are residents of same village. She went to the P.O. on the same day at about 7 A.M. she did not see anything at the place of incident because at that time the culprit was also no longer in their house of the prosecutrix. On cross examination, the prosecutrix and she are residents of same village. She went to the P.O. on the same day at about 7 A.M. she did not see anything at the place of incident because at that time the culprit was also no longer in their house of the prosecutrix. She heard from her friends that the accused was hiding, but could name her friends who had told her that the accused was hiding she denied that she made a fabricated statement that the accused was hiding and when she reached the house there were no traces of sexual assault. She further denied that the blood drops on the floor were not the blood of prosecutrix, but she did not notice any injury in the prosecutrix's mouth as she did not tell her to open her mouth. The stain on the wrap around was not the blood stain but she could understand as seminal stain. But, she could not say a seminal stain or not. The prosecutrix married once and had children. The prosecutrix's husband used to be out of station as some of their children were staying outside their village. The prosecutrix's house and her house are not close. They are living in a different locality. She admitted that they were living in a different locality and she did not have clear knowledge of the relationship between the prosecutrix and her husband. She did not have any knowledge the suggestion that the prosecutrix and her husband used to have altercation. She further did not know the character and morality of the prosecutrix. She also did not have any knowledge to the suggestion that when the husband of the prosecutrix used to be out of station, the prosecutrix often committed infidelity. She knew the prosecutrix's brother Rinawma. But, since they were not from the same locality they were not closely acquainted. Rinawma was the one who gave her the information regarding the instant case. She did not have any knowledge to the suggestion that Rinawma is not a trustworthy person. She admitted that Rinawma could have lied about the incident. It was denied by her that they did not ask the prosecutrix whether she wanted to compromise the matter. She did not have any knowledge to the suggestion that the victim could have mistaken the accused for some other person. She admitted that Rinawma could have lied about the incident. It was denied by her that they did not ask the prosecutrix whether she wanted to compromise the matter. She did not have any knowledge to the suggestion that the victim could have mistaken the accused for some other person. On re-examination, she did not know whether the information which she had received from Rinawma was correct or false. 15. The testimony of the prosecutrix that she had been raped by the accused was corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 2 Resonti. In fact, the accused did not shake the statement of this witness in cross examination. The corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix that she could not forgive the accused and told them that she wanted to lodge FIR, and lodged the FIR voluntarily has significance while accepting the testimony of the prosecutrix as trustworthy. 16. P. W 3 Lalrosanga a colleague of the accused identified accused Zorammawia. On the night of 06.10.2013 at about 10:30 pm, the accused accompanied by him entered into the house of the prosecutrix and drank local made liquor. He left the prosecutrix's house at around 11:30 pm. On cross examination, he came to know the incident on the following morning. He thought that the accused had been falsely implicated in the instant case since the day before the accused with other IT Personnel had seized liquor form the residence of the victim. The victim was regular seller of local made liquor. The victim is not deaf. He went to the residence of the prosecutrix when liquor was seized by the accused and other personnel. On re-examination, he did not know what the accused had done after leaving him from the residence of the prosecutrix. He did not know whether the accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. He admitted that the prosecutrix is not deaf. He also admitted that what he stated in his cross examination that the prosecutrix had falsely implicated the accused is just his opinion. 17. This witness clearly deposed that he and the accused had entered into the house of the prosecutrix on 6.10.2013 at about 10:30pm and drank local made liquor. Thereafter, he left the accused at around 11:30 pm. But, he did not mention whether the prosecutrix knew that they had come to her house and drank local made liquor on that night. This witness clearly deposed that he and the accused had entered into the house of the prosecutrix on 6.10.2013 at about 10:30pm and drank local made liquor. Thereafter, he left the accused at around 11:30 pm. But, he did not mention whether the prosecutrix knew that they had come to her house and drank local made liquor on that night. In the deposition of the prosecutrix, one old woman and her nephew who is mentally retarded were also present in the house of the prosecutrix, but they were not examined by the Case I.O. However, there is no significant value at all to buttress the stand of the prosecution. 18. P.W. 4 ST Vanlalzauva and PW 5 K. Lawmsanga stood as seizure witnesses in connection with the rape case committed by the accused on 7.10.2013. The Police seized one brazier and one mizo puan (cloth) in their presence. They proved seizure memo at Sxt. P-2 and one brazier at Ext. M-1. In cross-examination, they did not know the accused. The mizo puan was not produced in the court. The seized article at Ext. M-1 was not packed in their presence. They denied that the seized article at Ext. M-1 was not packed in their presence. They denied that the seized article had not been seized from the possession of the prosecutrix. The seized articles were seized on the night of 07.10.2013 at around 6-7 pm. The seizure was made by the case IO within one hour i.e. 6-7 pm. The time of seizure recorded by the Case IO at exhibit P-2 as 11:00 pm according to them is wrong. Such minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. 19. PW 6 Dr. Zirsangliana Chhangte identified the accused. On 8.10.2013, he received a requisition from SI C. Lalchhuanawma, W. Phaileng PS to examine the prosecutrix in connection with the rape case. In the requisition, it was shown that the prosecutrix was 48 years and she herself also told him that she was 48 years at the relevant time. At 1:00pm, he examined the prosecutrix and found that her hymen was old rupture but recent abrasion on her left posterior area. She started having a foul smelling and whitish discharge in her vagina from 2 days before. The requisition for Medical Examination of the victim is at Ext. At 1:00pm, he examined the prosecutrix and found that her hymen was old rupture but recent abrasion on her left posterior area. She started having a foul smelling and whitish discharge in her vagina from 2 days before. The requisition for Medical Examination of the victim is at Ext. P-3 and the Medical Examination Report of the victim at Ext P-4. On the same day, he also received a requisition from SI C. Lalchhuanawma, W. Phaileng PS to examine Zorammawis in connection with the alleged rape. At 1:30 pm, he also examined the accused. The accused stated before him that he and his one friend had entered into the victim's house on 6.10.2013 at around 10:00 pm under the influence of alcohol, but he denied commission of rape upon the victim. The accused also stated before him that he had left the victim's residence on the following morning. The requisition for Medical Examination of the accused is at Ext. P-5 and the Medical Examination Report of the accused at Ext. P-6. On cross examination, the victim had a husband at the time of the alleged incident. His opinion is that any blunt object can cause abrasion in vagina. There was no bruise mark in other parts of her body. There was no semen in the vagina of the victim. He came to know from the victim that the incident had happened 36 hours before his examination. On re-examination, his opinion is that generally, spermatozoa disappear in vagina after 24 hours. 20. The medical examination report of the prosecutrix clearly shows that the accused had sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent inasmuch as there was abrasion on left posterior area. It is also clear that from the statement of the medical witness that the accused entered into the house of the prosecutrix on 6.10.2016 under the influence of liquor and left the house on the following morning. 21. P.W. 7 SI C. Lalchhuanawma identified the accused. A written FIR was submitted on 8.10.2013 at around 3:30 pm by the prosecutrix to the effect that on the day before at around 3:00 am while sleeping in her house, the accused entered into her house with his friend and gagged her mouth. As the prosecutrix was deaf, she did not notice that someone was coming. The prosecutrix was raped by the accused. Hence. As the prosecutrix was deaf, she did not notice that someone was coming. The prosecutrix was raped by the accused. Hence. W. Phaileng PS Case No. 18 of 2013 dt 8.10.2013 u/s. 376(i)/448 of IPC was registered against the accused and the case was endorsed to him by the OC Phaileng PS. In the course of investigation, he visited the residence of the prosecutrix and drew a sketch map of the PO. He examined the prosecutrix and recorded her statement which revealed that on the morning of 1.10.2013, the accused had entered into her house while sleeping in her bedroom. The prosecutrix further stated that the accused had gagged her mouth with his hands and committed rape upon her. Reliable witnesses were also examined and their statements were recorded. He seized one brazier and one Mizo puan to compare blood sample of the accused. Thereafter, he sent the prosecutrix to have medical examination at PHC, W. Phaileng. The Medical examination report which he had received from the Medical Officer showed that hymen was ruptured but abrasion was found on left posterior area. He sent the seized Mizo puan and the blood sample of the accused to FSL. The report of the FSL shows that the blood stains were blood of human origin belonging to group O and the blood sample drawn from the accused was also blood group O. On 8.10.2013 at around 4:30 pm, he arrested the accused. When he examined the accused, the latter also admitted his guilt in the presence of reliable witnesses. On finding a prima facie case against the accused u/s. 376(1)/448 of IPC, he submitted charge sheet to CJM Aizawl. The original FIR is at Ext. P-1, the seizure memo at Ext. P-2, the requisition for Medical Examination of the prosecutrix at Ext. P-3, the Medical Examination Report of the victim at Ext. P-4, the requisition for Medical Examination of the accused at Ext. P-5, the Medical Examination Report of the accused at Ext. P-9, the charge sheet at Ext. P-10, the FSL Report at ExtP-11 and one brazier at M-1. On cross examination, the friend of the accused at the relevant time was Rosanga of 5th IR and the prosecutrix's deaf was not medically proved by a Medical Officer, but he knew that the prosecutrix was deaf when he examined her. P-9, the charge sheet at Ext. P-10, the FSL Report at ExtP-11 and one brazier at M-1. On cross examination, the friend of the accused at the relevant time was Rosanga of 5th IR and the prosecutrix's deaf was not medically proved by a Medical Officer, but he knew that the prosecutrix was deaf when he examined her. The prosecutrix could answer his question when he asked her loudly, the prosecutrix's deafness did not hamper his investigation as she had rational mind, the prosecutrix's FIR was recorded by their Constable Writer according to her dictation and the NGO members also appeared in the PS at the time of lodging FIR. He came to know that the victim's and the accused's blood groups were O. The exhibits including blood sample were packed but not sealed when sent to FSL. He admitted that the Mizo puan at Ext. 1 was not returned from FSL. He did not know what dresses the victim had worn at the time of the incident. The victim wore Mizo puan which they seized from her and he came to know this information from her. He denied that semen was not detected by the FSL. The distance between the victim's residence and her neighbor's residence is about 30-40 meters. He did not show the distance between the victim's residence and her neighbor's residence in the sketch map of the PO drawn by him. One very old woman was also present on the night of incident at the victim's residence. He did not send the old woman to have medical examination to test her deaf. 22. The investigation performed by P.W. 7 S.I. C. Lalchhuanawma appears to be perfunctory inasmuch the delay of submission of FIR is not explained by him. Though the statement of the prosecutrix recorded by him was on 7.1013, but the FIR was registered on 8.10.2013. 23. Finally, it is pertinent to mention her that the vital prosecution witnesses could not be produced to the court despite warrant of arrest were issued against the witnesses through the police. 24. P.W. No. 8 Lalchhanzova, Assistant Director, FSL received a requisition form the Officer-in-charge, West Phaileng P.S. for examination of two exhibits such as, Mizo puan (sky blue colour) marked as exhibit - 1 and control blood samples of accused marked as exhibit 2. The case was endorsed to him to examine the said exhibits. 24. P.W. No. 8 Lalchhanzova, Assistant Director, FSL received a requisition form the Officer-in-charge, West Phaileng P.S. for examination of two exhibits such as, Mizo puan (sky blue colour) marked as exhibit - 1 and control blood samples of accused marked as exhibit 2. The case was endorsed to him to examine the said exhibits. After careful physical and biological examination of the exhibits using scientific instruments available in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Aizawl, the following results are undertaken. a. The stains from Exhibit-1 were blood of human origin belonging to Group O. Semen was not detected from Exhibit-1, b. Exhibit 2 belonged to Blood Group O. Ext P-11 is a copy of FSL Report and Ext. P-11(a) is his signature. 25. On cross examination, the Mizo puan and the blood sample were packed together in polythene and the polythene was not sealed in any manner. The blood sample was taken with gauze and it was wrapped with a paper and the same was sent to the FSL after packing inside the said polythene. The examination of Exhibits was done by Ammie Lalnunpuii, Junior Scientific Officer, FSL with his assistance and under his supervision as he is senior officer to her. He admitted that there are different branches in forensic science and he is a biology expert. A letter dated 9.10.2013 sent by S.I. C. Lalchhuanawma, West Phaileng P.S. addressing the Deputy Director FSL is the only requisition for examination of the Mizo puan and the Blood sample. The polythene which consisted of the Mizo puan and the blood sample was not marked as Exhibit though the said articles inside the polythene were differently marked as Exhibits A and B. 26. The finding of blood stain on puan (cloth) also corroborates the testimony of the prosecutrix inasmuch as her mouth was bleeding. The blood group of the prosecutrix is Group O. 27. In the instant case, the victim of rape is a married Bru woman by community and the accused is a police constable of 5th IR Police. In such a situated case, this Court is expected to deal the case with utmost sensivity in conformity with the guidelines of the Apex Court in cases of crime against women. 28. In the instant case, the victim of rape is a married Bru woman by community and the accused is a police constable of 5th IR Police. In such a situated case, this Court is expected to deal the case with utmost sensivity in conformity with the guidelines of the Apex Court in cases of crime against women. 28. For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of the prosecution inspires much confidence to hold that the accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her will and without her consent. However, it is not safe to come to the conclusion that the accused had committed house trespass, thereby committed offence punishable u/s. 448 of IPC in view of the circumstances that the accused might not have intention to commit rape upon the prosecutrix. 29. In the result, I hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt under Section 376(1) of IPC. Consequently, the accused person is convicted of the offence under Section 376(1) of IPC. 30. Fixed 14.06.2016 for sentence hearing. Judgment is pronounced in open Court on this the 13th day of June, 2016 under my hand and seal of this Court." Order dated 14.06.2016 The convict Zorammawia is produced from judicial custody. Smt. Lalremthangi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor is present. Shri Roshan Subedi, learned Defence Counsel is also present. I heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as the learned Defence Counsel. The convict is also heard. According to the learned All. PP, the offence of rape committed by the convict police constable is heinous one. Hence, she made a prayer to sentence him Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- Per contra, the learned Defence Counsel made a prayer to show leniency to the convict since he is the sole bread winner of his family. The convict submitted that he is looking after his wife and two daughters, aged about 2 years and 4 years respectively. He is also looking after his mother aged about 54 years, who has a weak eye sight. He also repented for committing rape upon the prosecutrix. The submissions of the rival parties are considered. Hence, convict Zorammawia is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of fine, Simple Imprisonment for another ten days under Sec. 376(1) of IPC. He also repented for committing rape upon the prosecutrix. The submissions of the rival parties are considered. Hence, convict Zorammawia is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of fine, Simple Imprisonment for another ten days under Sec. 376(1) of IPC. The detention period in judicial custody undergone by the convict shall be set off. Seized article, if any, shall be destroyed in due course of law. This sentence order shall form a part of the Judgment passed on 13.06.2016 and is to be attached accordingly." 4. The appellant did not appoint any counsel to represent him so, Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga was appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent him. 5. On perusal of the appeal forwarded by the Special Superintendent, Central Jail, it appears that no specific ground has been given for the appeal except stating that he is not guilty of having committed, the offence he is convicted of and sentenced. However, the learned Amicus Curiae has raised the following points. (i) that the evidence given by the prosecutrix is not reliable because, though she stated that she was deaf, she was able to hear when she was examined and her statement was recorded in the Court. (ii) that the Doctor who examined the prosecutrix stated that no injury mark was found on other parts of her body, therefore, it can be concluded that no rape was committed on the prosecutrix. (iii) that the interpreter was the President of Bru Women Federation, therefore, she was an interested person. Moreover before she interpreted the statement of the prosecutrix oath, was not administered to her such, her interpretation cannot be trusted and relied upon. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that once the integrity of the interpreter is doubtful, the evidence of the witness cannot be relied upon. In support of his submission, he cited the decision of this Court rendered in 2014 (5) GLT 130 : Criminal Appeal No. 1/2014, Lalmalsawma Vs. State of Mizoram, particularly paragraph 5 of the judgment, the same is reproduced here below:- "5. I have gone through the materials on record as the impugned judgment. After giving my anxious consideration to the evidence on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution is unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix. I have gone through the materials on record as the impugned judgment. After giving my anxious consideration to the evidence on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution is unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix. At the outset, it may be observed that the manner in which the evidence of the witness was recorded and as interpreter was not administered oath by the learned trial Court or by the Magistrate recording the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164(5Xa), CrPC read with Section 119 of the Evidence Act, which is contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Darshan Singh (supra). It was held herein that in case the interpreter is provided, they should be a person of the same surrounding by should not have any interest and he should be administered oath. Obviously, the interpreter in this case was never administered oath by the Magistrate or trial Court. Secondly, PW 6 who has acted as the interpreter while recording the statement of prosecutrix has also admitted that she is a relative of the prosecutrix. If that is so, she is an interested witness and she should not have been allowed to act as an interpreter. In view of the legal position reiterated by the Apex Court in Darshan Singh (Supra), the statement of the prosecutrix and as interpreted by the interpreter is not admissible in law. Once the evidence of the prosecutrix is discarded, the question that remains to be decided is whether in the absence of the evidence of the prosecutrix, there are sufficient evidence to bring home the charge against the appellant." (iv) that Mr. Rinawma, the brother of the prosecutrix, never came to the Court to give evidence but he was not declared hostile. Moreover the old women and a boy who were living in the same house, where the prosecutrix alleged that the offence of rape was committed on her were not called as witnesses. They could have given vital evidence which could have led to a different conclusion. Non production and examination of such witnesses raised doubt on the truth about the offence, charged against the convict/appellant and his conviction. 6. The learned Addl. They could have given vital evidence which could have led to a different conclusion. Non production and examination of such witnesses raised doubt on the truth about the offence, charged against the convict/appellant and his conviction. 6. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted as follows:- That the interpreter, who interpreted the statement of the prosecutrix was administered oath as per the record, therefore, there is no reason to have doubt on her interpretation. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor also submitted that the old lady and the boy who were present in the same house where raped was committed upon the prosecutrix, could not be brought to Court because the old lady is too old and cannot be moved out of home and the boy is a mentally retarded person. 7. It was also submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that PW No. 3, who was a friend of the convict/appellant had testified that he had gone to the house of the prosecutrix with the convict/appellant to drink local made liquor but he left at about 11:30 p.m., leaving behind the convict/appellant. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submitted that this shows that no one but the convict/appellant had committed the offence of rape on the prosecutrix. Further, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that from the evidence of the PW No. 2, which was corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix that the police had asked her to settle the matter through a compromise and she was offered Rs. 70,000/- for the same. It can be concluded that the convict/appellant had committed the offence of rape on the prosecutrix. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the fact, that the Mizo puan and the clothings of the prosecutrix were not produce as exhibits does not weaken the case of the prosecution at all as the evidence given by the prosecutrix and the other PWs were sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the convict/appellant. Lastly, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that absence of marks of injury on other parts of the body of the prosecutrix was because, as she was having pain on her leg she was unable to struggle and fight back the convict/appellant in such circumstances, it is most unlikely that any injury marks would have been found on the body of the prosecutrix. 8. The learned Addl. 8. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in support of her submission cited the case of Narendra Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2012 7 SCC 171 , para 20 of the judgment. The same is reproduced here be-low:- "20. It is a settled legal proposition that once the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the court as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the court for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case." The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor also the cited the case of Wahid Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2010 2 SCC 9 . I have gone through the records including the impugned judgment & orders, statements of the witnesses. I have also considered the submissions of both the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. From the evidence of PW No. 3, which corroborates the evidence of the prosecutrix, it can be concluded that the convict/appellant was present at the place of occurrence i.e., in the night when the prosecutrix stated that rape was committed on her by him. Further, from the evidence of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix after 36 hours that abrasion was found on left posterior of the victim supports the evidence of the prosecutrix that she was raped by the convict/appellant. Moreover, the fact that a sum of Rs. 70,000/- was offered to the prosecutrix for a compromise settlement also shows that the prosecution's case is genuine and not a makeup story. A tribal woman, who is married with children, would not have come out and accuse somebody that too a person belonging to I.R. Battalion of having committed rape on her if it were not true. First, because it could have jeopardized her marriage, Secondly she would be aware that the stigma will follow her all her life. And thirdly, she was facing a much stronger opponent The fact that she did it is only because a wrong has been actually committed on her. First, because it could have jeopardized her marriage, Secondly she would be aware that the stigma will follow her all her life. And thirdly, she was facing a much stronger opponent The fact that she did it is only because a wrong has been actually committed on her. From her statement given in the examination in chief and in the cross-examination, there is nothing which would give rise to doubt on the veracity of the truth about the crime, committed on her. Once the evidence given by the prosecutrix is trustworthy that itself is sufficient to convict the person accused of having committed rape on her. This has been repeatedly stated by the Apex Court and the Courts in the country. One of the judgments in which the same has been stated has been cited by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the same has been already reproduced above:- On the trustworthiness and reliability of the interpretation of the interpreter, I am afraid it is too late in the day to raise such question. If the convict/appellant was not satisfied, the same should have been raise at the very outset of the re-examination of the prosecutrix. Moreover, in the impugned judgment the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had recorded that oath was administered to the interpreter before the prosecutrix was examined. There is no reason to doubt the statement of the Addl. Sessions Judge. Therefore, I am of the view that the interpretation of the statement of the prosecutrix by the interpreter has to be accepted and relied upon. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Aizawl. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Before I part with this judgment, I must record my appreciation for the assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, Advocate. The State Legal Services Authority shall pay him his remuneration as provided under the rules.