Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 522 (GAU)

Sh C Laihlo v. State Of Mizoram

2020-05-22

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, NELSON SAILO

body2020
JUDGMENT Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned Amicus Curiae and with Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 2. This is an appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 25.06.2018 passed by the Special Court, POCSO Act, Siaha in SR No. 11/2018, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 years with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default R.I. for 30 days, vide Sentence Order dated 26.06.2018. 3. The prosecution story in brief in that one Mr. H.C. Lalmuankima submitted an FIR on 18.02.2018 to the Officer-in-charge, Siaha Police Station, Siaha stating that his 2 (two) minor girls, aged 9 years and 7 years were sexually molested by the appellant before Christmas, 2017. Consequently, Siaha Police Station Case No. 18/2018 was registered under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and investigation was initiated. The victim girls were sent for Medical examination on 18.02.2018. The Medical report of the elder victim stated that the hymen was not intact, while the hymen of the younger victim was found to be intact. 4. During the investigation, the statements of the victim girls were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After recording the statement of the witnesses, Charge-sheet was submitted wherein, the Investigating Officer found a prima facie case under Section 6/10 of the POCSO Act, instead of under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Thereafter, trial started wherein, 6 Prosecution witnesses and 1 Defence witness were examined. After examining the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the learned Tribunal Court found the appellant to be guilty of the offence under Section 3(a), 3(c) and Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act, 2012. The appellant was consequently convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, vide the impugned Judgment & Order dated 25.06.2018 passed by the Special Court, POCSO Act, Siaha in SR No. 11/2018 and sentenced him to undergo 15 years RI along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default thereof, R.I. for 30 days, vide Sentence Order dated 26.06.2018. 5. The appellant being aggrieved has filed the present appeal. 6. 3,000/- and in default thereof, R.I. for 30 days, vide Sentence Order dated 26.06.2018. 5. The appellant being aggrieved has filed the present appeal. 6. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the learned Trial Court has found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 3 (a) of the POCSO Act against the elder victim girl, while he has found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 3 (c) of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the younger victim girl. As the 2 (two) minor sisters were below 12 years of age at the time of the incident, the learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty of aggravated penetrative sexual assault and accordingly, convicted him under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 7. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the finding of the learned Trial Court is not supported by the statements given by the victim girls under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also as per their recorded evidence, inasmuch as, there was no penetration of the vaginas of the victim girls by the penis of the appellant. There was only an attempt at penetration. wxyz The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that at the time of framing of charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, the learned Trial Court had used the word "penetrative sexual assault" and had left out the word "aggravated". He submits that the absence of the word "aggravated", while framing charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, vitiated the trial and has caused prejudice to the appellant. He thus submits that due to the above reasons, the appellant could not have been convicted for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. zyxw 8. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the impugned Judgment & Order need not be interfered with, in view of the fact that the appellant has admitted to his guilt in his appeal petition. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor also submits that the absence of the word "aggravated", while framing charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, has not caused any prejudice to the appellant, nor has it vitiated the trial, inasmuch as, the appellant was aware that Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 pertains to aggravated penetrative sexual assault. 9. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor also submits that the absence of the word "aggravated", while framing charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, has not caused any prejudice to the appellant, nor has it vitiated the trial, inasmuch as, the appellant was aware that Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 pertains to aggravated penetrative sexual assault. 9. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor also submits that there was penetration of the elder victim girl''s vagina by the appellant''s penis, as the evidence of the doctor is to the effect that the hymen of the elder victim girl was not intact. She thus prays that the appeal should be dismissed. 10. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the Lower Court records. 11. The evidence of the victim girls is to the effect that the appellant was known to them, as they were living in the same locality. During December 2017, the appellant approached them and offered Rs. 5/- each for having sex with him. He took them to one vacant house, where there was a bed with a mattress. The appellant first laid the younger victim girl on the bed and undressed her. He tried to insert his penis into the younger victim''s vagina but could not succeed with the penetration effort. The evidence given by the elder victim girl is also exactly similar to the one given by the younger victim and the same is being abstracted below for ready perusal. wxyz "1. I have known accused Mr. C. Laihlo who is also a resident''s of my locality. zyxw wxyz 2. During December, 2017 and in one day, when we played toys, accused came to us and he offered as five rupees each for having sex with him. He firstly called Lidya Lalrinsangi and I was called by him for second, when he took me into one vacant house, there was a bed with mattress, accused laid me in that bed, he undressed my pants and underwear, he tried to insert his penis into my vagina but he could not succeed penetration. zyxw wxyz 3. After I was called by accused, accused also called another Ms. Rosangi in the same manner. zyxw wxyz 4. Ext. P- XI is my judicial statement. zyxw wxyz 5. Ext. P- XI (a) is my signature. XXX by Learned D/L zyxw wxyz 1. zyxw wxyz 3. After I was called by accused, accused also called another Ms. Rosangi in the same manner. zyxw wxyz 4. Ext. P- XI is my judicial statement. zyxw wxyz 5. Ext. P- XI (a) is my signature. XXX by Learned D/L zyxw wxyz 1. It is a fact that accused gave us a note of Rs. 5/- each us. zyxw wxyz 2. It is also a fact that there was a pubic hair in the private parts area of accused." The statement of the victim girls given before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siaha under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is also similar to the evidence adduced by them during the trial proceedings. zyxw 12. The evidence of PW-1, who is the father of the 2 (two) victim girl is to the effect that, on 18.02.2018 his younger brother told him over telephone that there was some urgent important issues, which needed to be discussed and told him to proceed to the Siahatla Outpost. The appellant, who was already there, asked PW-1 to pardon him. Though PW- 1 was very angry on learning that his 2 (two) daughters were raped, he calmed down. Thereafter, he proceeded to the Siaha Police Station and lodged an FIR. 13. The evidence of PW-2, who is the brother of the father of the victim girls, is to the effect that he learnt from the children of his neighbour that the appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault upon the victim girls. He took the victim girls into his house and inspected their private parts and saw that there were some marks on their private parts. He stated that both the victims told him that the appellant had first raped the younger victim girl and thereafter, the elder victim girl. They were also both given Rs. 5/- each by the appellant. 14. A perusal of the statements given by the victim girls under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and their evidence before the Court clearly shows that there was an attempt to penetrate the vagina of the victim girls by the appellant''s private parts, but he could not succeed. They were also both given Rs. 5/- each by the appellant. 14. A perusal of the statements given by the victim girls under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and their evidence before the Court clearly shows that there was an attempt to penetrate the vagina of the victim girls by the appellant''s private parts, but he could not succeed. The learned Trial Court, by relying upon the deposition of the victim girls and the Medical examination reports, which shows absence of the hymen in the elder victim only, has however, in paragraph No. 13 of the impugned Judgment & Order, come to a finding that the appellant''s penis had penetrated into the vagina of the elder victim girl, so as to attract Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and that there was manipulation of the body of the younger victim girl, so as to cause penetration into the vagina, thereby attracting Section 3(c). Thus, while the evidence of the victim girls seems to indicate that there was no penetration of the vagina of the victim girls by the appellant''s penis, the finding of learned Trial Court with regard to the elder victim is that there was penetration of the vagina, only because of the absence of the hymen. We are of the considered view that the slightest penetration of the vagina/labia majora by the penis would come within the provision of Section 3(a) POCSO Act, 2012, keeping in view Explanation I of Section 375(a) IPC, as slight penetration might not necessarily rupture the hymen. It is also plausible that in an attempt to penetrate the vagina by the penis, there will be a slight penetration of the vagina or labia majora, howsoever minimal it might be. While Section 375 IPC pertains to the female gender, Section 3 POCSO Act, 2012 is gender neutral. As the victims herein are minor girls, the explanation provided in respect of Section 375 IPC will also be applicable to this case. wxyz Assuming there was no penetration of the vagina of the victim girls by the appellant''s penis, the question that arises is whether penetration is a sine qua non for attracting the provision of Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and whether the attempt to penetrate the vagina by the penis of the offender comes with the meaning of the word "manipulation" as provided in Section 3(c). zyxw 15. zyxw 15. Section 3 of the POCSO Act, 2012 states as follows:- wxyz "3. Penetrative sexual assault. - A person is said to commit "penetrative sexual assault" if zyxw wxyz (a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or zyxw wxyz (b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or zyxw wxyz (c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or zyxw wxyz (d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the child or makes the child to do so to such person or any other person". zyxw 16. While Section 3 (a) & (b) requires the penetration of the penis or the insertion of any object or part of a body, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person, Section 3 (d) requires the application of a mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of a child or makes the child to do so to such person or any other person. wxyz Section 3(c) on the other hand, does not require the actual penetration of a penis or insertion of any object or part of a body, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child. It only requires manipulation of any part of the body of a child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of the body of the child. If penetration of the vagina by a penis was a sine qua non for attracting Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act, 2012, there was no requirement for the Legislature to provide for Section 3(c), as Section 3(a) would have taken care of the offence. If penetration of the vagina by a penis was a sine qua non for attracting Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act, 2012, there was no requirement for the Legislature to provide for Section 3(c), as Section 3(a) would have taken care of the offence. Also, if penetration was a sine qua non for attracting Section 3(a) and (c), what was the need for adding another condition besides penetration, for attracting Section 3(c), i.e., manipulation. Accordingly, we are of the view that penetration is not a sine qua non for attracting Section 3(c). However, the manipulation has to be done with the intent and actual act, to cause penetration. zyxw 17. In the present case, the deposition of the victim girls clearly shows that the appellant attempted to have sexual intercourse with the victim girls. However, he could not do so, as he could not penetrate the victims'' vaginas as per the statements and evidence of the minor victims. Section 18 POCSO Act, 2012 provides for punishment for an attempt to commit an offence punishable under the POCSO Act. It provides that whoever attempts to commit any offence punishable under the Act or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt, does any Act towards the commission of the offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of any description which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence or with fine or with both. In the present case, though at first blush, it appears that Section 18 could be attracted in the present case, on delving deeper into the facts of the case and the provisions of the POCSO Act, we find that Section 3(c) could also be attracted. In his attempt to have sexual intercourse, the appellant would surely have touched the vagina of the victim girls with his hands, body or penis as per evidence adduced. The question is whether the touching of the victim girls'' vaginas by the appellant''s penis would amount to manipulation of any part of the body of the victim girls, so as to cause penetration into the vagina. 18. The meaning of the word "manipulate" as per Webster Comprehensive Dictionary is to handle, operate or use with or as with the hands, especially with skill. 18. The meaning of the word "manipulate" as per Webster Comprehensive Dictionary is to handle, operate or use with or as with the hands, especially with skill. In the Cambridge Advanced Learner''s Dictionary, manipulate means to control something or someone to your advantage to control something using the hands. Manipulation of the body of the child would include touching their bodies. The putting of oil or massaging the children''s body would also come within the meaning of manipulation. If there is touching of the child''s body by any part of another person''s body i.e., by the hands, nose, mouth, toes etc, to cause penetration, then the touching of the private parts of the children by the appellant''s penis would also come within the meaning of manipulation as set out in Section 3(c). wxyz In the book title Child Sexual Abuse and Protection Laws in India, written by Debarati Halder, the author Debarati Halder has written as follows:- zyxw wxyz "Manipulating any part of the body so as to cause penetration : This particular sexual behaviour was also brought in within the arena of penetrative sexual assault on children by sec 3 (c) of the POSCO Act. It may be interesting to note that Sec. 3 of the POSCO Act uses the term "or" after each sub-section only to indicate that even when the perpetrator has committed such particular offence and not the other offences as has been mentioned in Section 3, the behaviour can fall within the meaning of penetrative sexual assault. zyxw wxyz Linguistically, manipulating may mean "to control something using the hands" or to "control someone or something to the advantage of the manipulator unfairly or dishonestly", or "control something using hands" or "to treat a part of the body, using the hands to push back bones into the correct position or put pressure on muscles". Child sexual exploitation prevention laws of several jurisdictions have used the term "manipulation" in regard to child sexual exploitation within the scope of the first meaning as shown in the aforementioned lines. For example, a booklet titled "STOPPING THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH", published by the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General of British Columbia, uses the term "manipulation" to mean how children and young persons can be seduced and manipulated to participate in physical as well as online sexual harassment of themselves. For example, a booklet titled "STOPPING THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH", published by the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General of British Columbia, uses the term "manipulation" to mean how children and young persons can be seduced and manipulated to participate in physical as well as online sexual harassment of themselves. However, the later meaning provides a positive understating of the term manipulating; but it also provides a wider idea as what may constitute manipulation. A combination of the meanings offered hereby may mean that manipulating may also mean unfair and coercive handing of the body parts for the manipulators own advantage, which may include forceful pushing of the body parts, internal muscles etc. A clear reading of section 3 (c) of the POSCO Act may also show that manipulating of the body parts so as to cause penetration into the vagina, mouth, anus or urethras may mean using force on the body parts for the undue advantage of the manipulator for causing penetration. It may be pertinent to note that POCSO Act does not use the term "rape" or "attempt to rape" or "sexual assault" to include the instances of child sexual abuses within its arena. As such, all of such sexually aggressive behaviour have been clubbed up to constitute the meaning of penetrative sexual assault on children. However, seeing from the perspective of its linguistic meaning it needs to be noted that offences where sexual penetration have not taken place in reality, but where the perpetrator had manipulated any body part of the child in order to commit penetrative sexual offences must also be brought in under the purview of Section 3 clause (c) of the POSCO Act and also under section 5 when the nature of the offence falls under category of aggravated penetrative sexual assault." zyxw wxyz In our endeavour to find out whether manipulation would include the touching of the men''s penis with the child''s vagina, we find the above extract to be relevant to the issue in hand. The attempt to penetrate the private part of the victim girls by the appellant''s penis required physical contact, which in our considered view amounts to manipulation, as provided under Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act, 2012. The attempt to penetrate the private part of the victim girls by the appellant''s penis required physical contact, which in our considered view amounts to manipulation, as provided under Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act, 2012. Thus, we are in agreement with the understanding of the word ''manipulation'' given in the above article by Debarati Halder in respect of Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act, 2012. zyxw 19. In the present case, the evidence adduced by the victim girls shows that the appellant had attempted to insert his penis into the vaginas of the victim girls, but he could not succeed with the penetration attempt. On considering the provision of Section 3(c) to the POCSO Act, 2012, which states that a person is set to commit penetrative sexual assault if he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, we are of the view that the attempt to insert the penis of the appellant into the vagina of the victim girls, amounts to manipulation of the body of the child, so as to cause penetration into the vagina, as he must have used his hands or part of his body or penis to touch the body/vagina of the victim girls while attempting penetration. Thus, any attempt to penetrate into the vagina of the victims by the appellant''s penis, by coming into contact with the victim''s body, would come within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act, 2012. 20. Though the victim girls in their evidence have stated that the appellant could not succeed in his penetration attempt, even though he tried to insert his penis into the vaginas of the victim girls, it is quite likely that there was some minimal amount of penetration by the appellant''s penis into the vaginas of the victim girls. The requirement of penetration of the penis into the vagina, as provided in Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act, 2012 uses the word "to any extent". This "to any extent" would also include the slightest penetration. However, as the evidence adduced states that there was no penetration, we have to go by the facts of the case. Accordingly, though Section 3(a) does not appear to be attracted, Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act, 2012 is attracted in the present case. This "to any extent" would also include the slightest penetration. However, as the evidence adduced states that there was no penetration, we have to go by the facts of the case. Accordingly, though Section 3(a) does not appear to be attracted, Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act, 2012 is attracted in the present case. Further, as the victim girls were below 12 years of age, Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act, 2012 is also attracted, thereby, requiring the punishment for the offences to be made under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 21. At the time of framing of charge, the learned Trial Court had left out the word "aggravated", while framing charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the appellant. The question is whether the absence of the word "aggravated", while framing charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 vitiated the trial and caused prejudice to the appellant. Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 provides for the punishment to be imposed for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. 22. The relevant portion of the Trial Court document at the time of framing of charge against the appellant under Section 6 of the POSCO Act, 2012 is reproduced below:- wxyz "(3) Date and place: zyxw wxyz That you, in December, 2017, you had committed penetrative sexual assault upon Ms. Lidya Lalrinsangi (7 yrs) and Ms. H.C. Lalhlunchhungi (9 yrs) by offering Rs. 5/- each in your residential house at Siahatla, Siaha and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and within the cognizance of this court. zyxw wxyz And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said zyxw wxyz charge. zyxw wxyz Dated this 24th day of May, 2018. zyxw wxyz [Sections 228(2), 240 (2), 246 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] zyxw wxyz Read over and asked the accused whether he pleads guilty or not and to which pleaded not guilty." zyxw 23. A perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses shows that even at the time of cross-examination, the appellant was well aware that he was charged with penetrative sexual assault on the victim girls, who were 7 and 9 years old. A perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses shows that even at the time of cross-examination, the appellant was well aware that he was charged with penetrative sexual assault on the victim girls, who were 7 and 9 years old. Further, as the learned Trial Court had specifically recorded that the appellant was charged under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, the appellant cannot now take the plea that he was not charged for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. If the appellant felt that he was not charged for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, he could have taken the plea with regard to the same at any time during the trial proceedings, during the stage of arguments and sentence hearing. 24. A perusal of the Lower Court records and the Sentence Order dated 26.06.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court clearly shows that the appellant never took the plea before the learned Trial Court that he was not aware that he had been charged with aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Further, there is nothing to show in the records or in the evidence adduced by the parties that some prejudice had been caused to the appellant, by the omission of the word "aggravated" at the time of framing of charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 25. In view of the reasons stated above, we hold that the absence of the word "aggravated", while framing charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 did not vitiate the trial and has caused no prejudice to the appellant. In the examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant had flatly denied having tried to insert his penis into the vagina of the victim girls, without attempting to give any explanation with regard to the evidence adduced by the victim girls. 26. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P, (2014) 5 SCC 353 , the Apex Court has held that in the event of complete denial, silence or non explanation of incriminating material, the Court would be entitled to draw an inference, including adverse inference against the accused as may be permissible in accordance with law. 27. In the case of Narender Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 7 SCC 171 and in the case of B.C. Deva ALIAS DYAVA Vs. 27. In the case of Narender Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 7 SCC 171 and in the case of B.C. Deva ALIAS DYAVA Vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 12 SCC 122 , the Apex Court has held that once the statements of the prosecutrix is found to be cogent, reliable, convincing and inspires confidence and is accepted by the Court, conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required. 28. In the present case, as the appellant had tried to insert his penis into the private parts of the victim girls, but could not penetrate the same, the same would imply that there was contact between private parts of the appellant and the victim girls. We hold that the same would amount to manipulating the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina. Consequently, Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act, 2012 would be attracted. As the victim girls were below the age of 12 years, Section 5(m) is also attracted. We also find that the testimony of the victim girls inspires confidence and is trustworthy. 29. The above being said, a perusal of the appeal petition filed by the appellant from jail, is to the effect that he has committed a heinous crime against the victim girls and he has completely accepted the order passed by the learned Trial Court. However, due to him being 60 years as on 10.09.2018 and having a wife who is having many health issues, with 2 small children, the appellant has prayed for reducing the term of sentence imposed upon him. wxyz Paragraph No. 2 of the appellant''s appeal is reproduced below: zyxw wxyz "I, C. Laihlo S/o Ngoly, Siahatlah have committed a heinous crime before God and my fellow human being (an innocent minor). I was therefore sentenced to 15 years in prison with a fine of Rs. 3000 i/d 1 month by the Court. I completely accept the Order passed by the Court in my case and I have no justification against it. I sincerely regret what I have done and I would do anything to repair the damage done. As it cannot be mended, I have no choice but to sincerely regret doing what I have done. Had I been sober during the incident, I would not have done any harm to the innocent minor. I sincerely regret what I have done and I would do anything to repair the damage done. As it cannot be mended, I have no choice but to sincerely regret doing what I have done. Had I been sober during the incident, I would not have done any harm to the innocent minor. After being jailed, I have been reformed morally and spiritually. I regret doing what I have done and I now truly repent my sins and thus lived my life in jail as a reformed man." zyxw 30. On considering the admission made by the appellant in his appeal petition, it is clear that the finding of the learned Special Court, POCSO Act in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment & order has not been challenged or controverted. Paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment & order is reproduced below:- wxyz "Thus, as clearly deposed by the victim and affirmed by medical examination report as stated above, accused penetrates his penis into the vagina of the elder victim as clause (a) above and also manipulates the body of a younger victim so as to cause penetration into the vagina as enshrined under clause (c) above." zyxw 31. In view of the reasons stated above, we do not find any ground to set aside the impugned judgment & order. Though we do not find any ground to set aside the impugned Judgment and Order, we find that the learned Trial Court has given a single sentence/ punishment with regard to two crimes committed by the appellant. As can be seen from paragraph 13 of the impugned Judgment and Order, the learned Trial Court has found the appellant guilty of Section 3 (a) of POCSO Act, 2012 in respect of the elder victim and also found the appellant guilty of Section 3 (c) of POCSO Act, 2012 in respect of the younger victim. As such, the learned Trial Court had to convict the appellant for two crimes against the two victim girls, which would necessarily entail two punishments/ sentences to be handed to the appellant. However, the learned Trial Court in the Sentence Order dated 26.06.2018 has simply sentenced the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 to undergo 15 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for another 30 days. However, the learned Trial Court in the Sentence Order dated 26.06.2018 has simply sentenced the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 to undergo 15 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for another 30 days. On considering the fact that the appellant is guilty of two offences against the two victims, the appellant has to be convicted for two offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and given two sentences. Accordingly, the appellant is convicted under Section 6 for committing the offence of Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act, 2012, read with Section 5 (m) against the elder victim. He is accordingly sentenced to undergo 15 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, another 30 days Rigorous Imprisonment. The appellant is also convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 15 years for committing the offence of Section 3(c) read with Section 5 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the younger victim. The sentences shall run concurrently. Consequently, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 25.06.2018 and Sentence Order dated 26.06.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court are modified to the extent indicated above. Send back the LCR. 32. For the assistance provided by the learned Amicus Curiae, his fee is fixed at Rs. 9,000/- to be paid by the Mizoram State Legal Services Authority.