JUDGMENT : (Budi Habung, J.) : 1. This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, 1973 is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.2023 passed by the learned Court of Special Judge, (POCSO), Lower Subansiri/Kurung Kumey/Kra Daadi/Kamle District, Ziro, whereby, the accused/applicant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20(twenty) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only, in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 1(one) year for the offence under Section 17 of POCSO Act, 2012. 2. The accused No.1 Godak Tamin was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50000/- only, in default of payment of fine to undergo further SI for 1 (one) year for offence under section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. It is informed to this court that the said co-accused Godak Tamin choose not to file any appeal before this Court. 3. In view of the aforesaid, this Court required to assess the prosecution case qua the appellant only, who was accused No.2 in POCSO CASE (Z) No.07/2021 arising out of Raga PS Case No.12/2021. FACTS OF THE CASE 4. The fact leading to the conviction of the accused is that on 28.05.2021 at about 1010 hours, a written FIR was received by the Officer-In-Charge Police Station, Raga from one Shri Tagru Tasing (PW-1) to the effect that on the night of 29.01.2021, Shri Godak Tamin (A1) forcefully raped his minor daughter Ms. XXX (name withheld and hereinafter referred as victim) in the house of appellant Smti. Godak Sappi (A-2) at Radum village, where the victim was invited by the appellant to stay with her. On receipt of the written FIR, the case was registered being Raga P.S. Case No. 12/2021 under Section 376(2)(i) IPC R/W Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and investigated into. Basing on the statement of the victim the accused persons were arrested. As per the report P/Ext-4 the victim was aged about 10 years and She passed her class IV (four) in the academic session 2020-21 and as such, at the time of incident, she was a “Child” within the meaning of Clause (d) of section 2 (1) of the POCSO Act. 5. As per the report P/Ext-4 the victim was aged about 10 years and She passed her class IV (four) in the academic session 2020-21 and as such, at the time of incident, she was a “Child” within the meaning of Clause (d) of section 2 (1) of the POCSO Act. 5. On completion of investigation, the IO found sufficient materials against both the accused persons and laid charge-sheet against the co-accused Godak Tamin under Section 376 AB, R/W Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and against the appellant Godak Sappi under Section 17 of POCSO Act. On committal of the case, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Ziro framed charge against the co-accused Godak Tamin under Sections 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 376(3) IPC and the accused appellant Godak Sappi was charged under Section 17 of POCSO Act, 2012. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. To bring home to the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 (seven) witnesses and also relied upon various document duly proved during the course of the trial. After completion of prosecution evidences, the accused were examined and their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The plea of accused persons were of total denial. The co-accused Godak Tamin also pleaded alibi stating that he did not visit the house of A2 on the alleged incident day and adduced evidence of two defence witnesses in support of his case; however, the appellant did not produce any defence witness. 7. On completion of trial, the learned Special Judge found that the prosecution has proved its case against both the accused. The co-accused Godak Tamin was found guilty of commission of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on minor victim punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and the appellant has been found to have abetted the co-accused Godak Tamin to commit the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the minor victim punishable under Section 17 of POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 20(twenty) years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only, in default of payment of fine to undergo a simple imprisonment of 1(one) year for the offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act. Accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 20(twenty) years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only, in default of payment of fine to undergo a simple imprisonment of 1(one) year for the offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act. And the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 20 (twenty) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only, in default of payment of fine to undergo a simple imprisonment for 1(one) year for offence under Section 17 of POCSO Act against which this criminal appeal has been filed. 8. We have heard Mr. S. Koyang, the learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state respondent and Ms. H. Jeram, learned Legal Aid Counsel representing the informant/victim. SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT 9. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. Koyang made the following submissions: i. That the victim is inconsistent in her stand with regard to the date, time and month of the incident and the dresses she is purpoted to have worn at the time of incident. She is also not consistent with regard to the name, identity, her father’s name and the name of the father of the accused and kept changing in her deposition, evidence and statement before the Magistrate. Such contradictory and discrepancy indicates that the victim has falsely implicated the accused, as such, evidence given by her cannot stand and relied upon for conviction of the appellant. ii. That the informant PW-1 and the mother of the victim PW-2 have nowhere implicated the appellant for commission of the alleged offence of abetment of rape except the statement that the appellant had taken the victim to sleep with her in their house; the victim in her evidence also clarified that she was not sure if the appellant was involved with the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) and abated rape. In fact, there is no any evidence to show that the appellant had ever abetted to commit offence of rape by the accused Godak Tamin (A1) warranting punishment for abetment under Section 17 of POCSO Act. iii. In fact, there is no any evidence to show that the appellant had ever abetted to commit offence of rape by the accused Godak Tamin (A1) warranting punishment for abetment under Section 17 of POCSO Act. iii. Further, during examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) stated that he did not visit the appellant’s house on 29.01.2021. And even if co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) had visited her house, she was not aware of his visit. Her statement has been corroborated by the statement of victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, wherein, the victim had stated that she went with the appellant to her house and after a while the appellant slept with her daughter and she was watching T.V when co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) came in the house of the appellant at about 10 p.m to 12 a.m. And in the morning the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) left the house while the appellant was still sleeping and she did not wake up appellant to inform about the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1). Thus, the appellant was unaware of the arrival of Godak Tamin (A1) in her house and the incident that had taken place, if any. iv. That the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) who has been examined as DW-1 in his evidence stated that he did not know the appellant prior to the alleged incident of the instant case. The co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) has denied having visited the house of the appellant (A2). And if the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) had not visited the house of the appellant, there is no question of commission of the alleged offence of rape or abatement in the house of the appellant as alleged. And as such the allegation that the appellant has abetted commission of offence of rape is false. v. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the prosecutor had adduced 7(seven) witnesses and the accused had adduced 2(two) defence witnesses. However, none of the prosecution witnesses or the defence witnesses has given any evidence implicating the appellant for commission of alleged offence of abetment. As such the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, prayed for an acquittal. vi. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Maruthi Pawar Vs. As such the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, prayed for an acquittal. vi. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Maruthi Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr reported in 2009 12 SCC 406 wherein, on the basis of contradictory statement given by the witnesses the accused persons were acquitted by setting aside the conviction order. vii. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that there is delay in lodging first information report in as much as the incident is alleged to have taken place in the night of 29.01.2021; however, the FIR was lodged only on 27.05.2021. And such delay in lodging FIR for more than 4 (four) months does not inspire confidence and creates doubt in the prosecution case. To support his case, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Mapilla P.P. Soopi reported in 2003 8 SCC 202 wherein, it is stated that undue delay in lodging the complaint without acceptable evidence has also contributed to the doubt in the prosecution case. Hence, the High Court was justified in allowing the appeal. SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. L. Hage made the following submissions: (i) That admittedly, the appellant took the victim in her house. She took victim to the house for 2 (two) consecutive nights, in the first night she took her with permission of guardian of the victim and on the second night without permission and it was responsible on appellant to ensure the safety of the minor girl child and protect her from any eventuality. However, in both the nights, the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) came to her house and slept with the victim and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her under threat to hit her. The accused also improbably threatened victim not to reveal the incident. The victim being minor girl was scared of the accused and did not disclose the incident to her parent. (ii) However, when the victim left for her hostel, the appellant had disclosed about the sexual intercourse on the victim by co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) to the villagers. The accused also improbably threatened victim not to reveal the incident. The victim being minor girl was scared of the accused and did not disclose the incident to her parent. (ii) However, when the victim left for her hostel, the appellant had disclosed about the sexual intercourse on the victim by co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) to the villagers. This clearly shows that the appellant knew it well from the very beginning. And the news of sexual relationship of victim with co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) spread upto the school of victim from where the victim came to know. The father of the victim informant PW-1 and her mother PW-2 came to know about the incident from the villagers and after confirmation from the victim, the informant lodged an FIR. And as such there has been some delay in lodging FIR as the minor victim was prevented from disclosing the incident. (iii) That the A1 and A2 are related to each other as the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) is brother-in-law of appellant. As such, the question of appellant not knowing co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) prior to the incident does not arise. (iv) That the victim clearly stated that the incident took place on 29th & 30th day, but she did not remember the month and the year which is probable being a minor child. After incident, the victim went back to her hostel and in the hostel her friends talked about her sexual relationship with the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1). This statement of the victim corroborates with the statement of the PW-1 and PW-2, who stated that the accused/appellant Smti Godak Sappi (A2) had disclosed the rape incident to the villagers. (v) That the A1 committed a forceful sexual intercourse with the victim for two consecutive nights in the house of appellant; on first night it was in the same room and on the second night the appellant was in the separate room. The victim further deposed that on the second night she was fighting with the accused Shri Godak Tamin (A1) by hitting him with hand and leg, the appellant who was sleeping at the adjacent room came and told them to sleep without making noise. The victim further deposed that on the second night she was fighting with the accused Shri Godak Tamin (A1) by hitting him with hand and leg, the appellant who was sleeping at the adjacent room came and told them to sleep without making noise. According to victim, appellant was fully aware of what was happening with her or what the accused Shri Godak Tamin (A1) had done with her otherwise she would not have allowed the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) to sleep with her on the first night and again on the second night when the accused Shri Godak Tamin (A1) had closed the latches of the room. This clearly shows that the appellant was well aware of what was happening with the victim and the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) at the incident nights. However, the victim is not sure about the involvement of the appellant in allowing the co-accused Godak Tamin to commit forceful sexual intercourse with her, but stated that the appellant could be involved as they were discussing inside before the incident. This statement of the victim has not been controverted by the defence side (vi) The co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) who himself has given evidence as DW-1 took plea of alibi. However, in reply to the suggestion made by the defence counsel for the co-accused Godak Tamin, the victim replied that it is not a fact that she was in love with co-accused Godak Tamin and therefore she had consensual sex with him. By making such suggestion to the minor victim, the defence counsel for the co-accused Godak Tamin wanted to show that there was a love affairs between the A1 and the victim and that they had a consensual sexual intercourse. This clearly shows that the accused No. 1 came to the house of the appellant and had sexual intercourse with the victim to the knowledge of the appellant on the incident nights. The learned trial Court also rejected the plea of alibi by A1 saying that on incident night at 10 p.m. to 12 a.m. his presence at the place of occurrence at Radum village cannot be ruled out. The learned trial Court also rejected the plea of alibi by A1 saying that on incident night at 10 p.m. to 12 a.m. his presence at the place of occurrence at Radum village cannot be ruled out. (vii) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that from the above allegations, it shows that the accused/appellant has abetted the commission of the offence by the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) and as such the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt for offence under Section 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the appellant and therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the appeal. The above submission has been fully endorsed and supported by the learned Legal aid counsel for the informant/victim. A POINT FOR DETERMINATION 11. In view of the above rival contention made by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that would arise for determination in the present appeal is whether the learned Special Judge, Ziro, is justified in convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 17 of POCSO Act and sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for 20 (twenty) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only with default. FINDING AND REASONS: 12. We have given our thoughts and consideration to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire materials on record including the LCR. Since this Court being the first appellate court and it is a fact-finding court, in order to find out the truth it has to appreciate the evidences. For the proper appreciation we may now briefly examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses in respect of the accused/appellant. i. PW-3 (Victim) deposed that she was 10(ten) years old on 29.03.2021. She knew the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) as he came to their village when his elder brother committed suicide and both the accused (A1) and appellant are related to each other. That one day for the first time, the appellant requested her to stay with her as she was alone and on permission granted by his father she went with the appellant in her house. That one day for the first time, the appellant requested her to stay with her as she was alone and on permission granted by his father she went with the appellant in her house. At night while she was sleeping in the T.V room the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) came and by threatening to hit her, he committed forceful sexual intercourse with her; she fought to resist the offence but he was far more powerful than her and she could not remove the weight of his body. She also screamed out of pain. Next morning, she went back to her house but in the same evening the appellant again took her to her house and the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) again came and committed forceful intercourse with her. The incident took place on 29th & 30th but she does not remember the month and the year. After the incident she went to hostel, and in the hostel her friends started talking about her sexual relationship with the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1). Then she informed about the incident to her father. On being asked, she told her father that out of fear she could not disclose the incident earlier. She further deposed that she was raped in the room which was separated from the room were appellant was sleeping. She was not sure whether the appellant was involved with the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) allowing him to rape her but stated that she could be involved. During cross-examination, she stated that she was raped by the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) on 2(two) consecutive nights and she was having body pain on the morning of the incident. On the second night she hit and kicked the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) but he overpowered her and committed rape. During cross-examination by the counsel for the appellant, she stated that the appellant was sleeping in the same room where she was raped. She did not inform to her about the incident. However, in the second night when the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) came, she wanted to sleep with the appellant, but the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) closed the door and committed rape. In the second night the appellant was sleeping in different room. She did not inform to her about the incident. However, in the second night when the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) came, she wanted to sleep with the appellant, but the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) closed the door and committed rape. In the second night the appellant was sleeping in different room. According to her the appellant was fully aware of what was happening to her or what the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) had done to her otherwise she would not have allowed the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) to sleep with her on the first night and again on the second night when the accused Shri Godak Tamin (A1) had closed the latch of the room. Most probably the appellant knew what the accused Shri Godak Tamin (A1) had done to her on both the nights but she cannot confirm it. Further the victim stated that, she had not seen the appellant abetting the offence as both the accused persons were inside the room and talking before the incident. In reply to the court question, PW-3 stated that on the second night when she was fighting with co-accused Godak Tamin(A1) by hitting him by hand and leg, the appellant who was sleeping in the adjacent room came and told them to sleep without making noise and in her cross examination to the court question, she further stated that the appellant asked them not to make noise and told her to sleep in another room which is separated by two walls made of concrete and plank. She further stated that the appellant was aware that the accused Shri Godak Tamin (A1) was with her. ii. PW-1 Shri Tagru Tasing, the father of victim and an informant deposed that the appellant is their neighbor and she stays alone in her house as her in-laws had gone to Itanagar. And on 29.01.2021, on the request of appellant he allowed his minor daughter(victim) to stay with her and on that night the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) came to the house of appellant and committed forceful rape on his minor daughter. This witness further stated that he was not aware of the rape, but the appellant had disclosed about the rape to the villagers and at last he also came to know about the same which was confirmed by the victim. iii. PW-2, Smti. This witness further stated that he was not aware of the rape, but the appellant had disclosed about the rape to the villagers and at last he also came to know about the same which was confirmed by the victim. iii. PW-2, Smti. Tagru Yadi is the mother of victim; she deposed that she did not remember the date but the appellant took her daughter to her house on two consecutive nights. She clarified that they have no any enmity with Godak Clan. In her cross-examination she stated that the appellant disclosed to the villagers that the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) committed rape on her minor daughter. iv. PW-4 is the headmaster of the school where the victim had studied. He proves the certificate showing the date of birth of the victim as per school register as on 12.12.2011 which shows that the victim was minor at the time of incident. v. PW-5 is Dr. Nani Tarang. He examined the co-accused Godak Tamin who stated before him that he met the victim in the house of appellant and had a contact on her chest while taking back his mobile phone. This evidence has not been controverted by the defence which clearly shows that the A1 came in the huse of the appellant. vi. PW-6 is Dr. Tailang Mamung who examined victim and found her hymen torn, however, healed hymenal tear present and no sign of fresh injury found. She opined the hymenal ring torn and the ring continuity is lost, showing the evidence of sexual contact. vii. PW-7, is IO of the case who investigated and submitted the case into charge sheet. During investigation it was found that on 29.01.2021 at about 1700 hours to 1800 hours, the appellant took the victim to her house at Radum village. At around 2200 hours to 2400 hours, the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) came in the house of the appellant and forcefully raped the minor child in the kitchen where three of them were present. The co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) slept with the victim till morning and left. Again, on the next date i.e., on 30.01.2021, the appellant took the victim to her house without permission from her parent and on that night also the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) committed sexual intercourse with the victim girl. The co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) slept with the victim till morning and left. Again, on the next date i.e., on 30.01.2021, the appellant took the victim to her house without permission from her parent and on that night also the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) committed sexual intercourse with the victim girl. The appellant in spite of knowing the fact that the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) was sleeping with minor child did not report to anyone and thereby committed an offence of abetment. This witness further stated that during the investigation it was found that both the accused persons and the minor victim were sleeping in the same room in the kitchen of the appellant. The place of occurrence has fire place and the co-accused A2 was sleeping at the distance of 2 meters from the main accused A1. FINDING OF THE COURT AND CONCLUSION: 13. We have gone through the oral evidence of the relevant witnesses. It is not disputed that the appellant had taken the minor victim to her house to sleep with her and at night they were sleeping in the same room. The appellant was sleeping with her daughter about 2 meters away from the place where the victim was made to sleep. While the appellant was sleeping with her daughter, the victim was watching T.V. and went to sleep. And at about 10:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. in the intervening night, the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) came to the house of the appellant; he then slept with the victim and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her under threat to hit her. Since the distance between the place where the victim was sleeping was only about 2 meters from the bed of the appellant on the first night; the appellant not being aware of the incident is improbable. And on the second occasion, the victim resisted by hitting and kicking leg to the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) which created sufficient sound to draw attention of the appellant who was sleeping inside the room. The appellant even went out of her room and warned them not to make sound. However, the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) latched the door of the room where the appellant was sleeping. This clearly shows that the appellant was well aware of the incident. The appellant even went out of her room and warned them not to make sound. However, the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) latched the door of the room where the appellant was sleeping. This clearly shows that the appellant was well aware of the incident. Further, during cross examination by the learned counsel for the appellant, the victim deposed that before the incident of rape, the appellant and the co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) were inside the room talking with each other. Such, discussion by both the accused persons inside the room before the incident only indicates that the appellant is involved in the commission of the offence. This piece of evidence has not been controverted or rebutted by the defence side. 14. There is delay in lodging the First information report for about 4 months. However, for the same, a plausible explanation has been given by the victim as she was the victim of sexual offence under threat by co-accused Godak Damin (A1), and she being a minor child was so scared that she did not dare to disclose the incidents. It was the appellant who is alleged to have disclosed the same. And when the news reached to the victim and her parents, she was compelled to disclose to her parents who thereafter had lodged an FIR. In our opinion, the victim being a minor child was prevented from disclosing the incident due to her ignorance and fear of the accused. In that view of the matter, we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution case is false because there is a delay in lodging First information report. 15. The victim is consistent in her evidence and it is in consonance with her statement recorded under 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Her evidence withstood to the scrutiny of cross-examination, though there are some omissions, which are minor in nature and not fatal to the case. As such, there is no reason to disbelieve the victim. Moreover, there was no reason for the victim and her family to falsely implicate the appellant in as much as the main co-accused is a stranger to the victim’s parent and they had a close family relationship with the appellant. 16. As such, there is no reason to disbelieve the victim. Moreover, there was no reason for the victim and her family to falsely implicate the appellant in as much as the main co-accused is a stranger to the victim’s parent and they had a close family relationship with the appellant. 16. By harping on about the age of the victim and asking the question that the victim had an affair with the co-accused Godak Tamin, the defendant is trying to prove that the victim was a consenting party. In our view, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the victim was a consenting party has to be rejected outrightly in view of the fact that the victim was minor and was “child” within the meaning of the provision of the POCSO Act, and the consent, if any, is immaterial. 17. There is a presumption available in favour of the prosecution under section 29 of the POCSO Act. The same read as under: “29. Presumption as to the offence- Where a person is prosecuted to commit any offence under Section 3, 5, 7, and section 9, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abated or attempted to commit offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved.” 18. In the instant case, the prosecution has proved the fundamental facts against the accused person, it was for the accused person to rebut the same by adducing evidence either by way of cross- examination or by way of independent evidence. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, she has not adduced any independent evidence. Mere perusal of the cross-examination of the material prosecution witnesses shows that the presumption is not rebutted. Not only that, though an attempt was made on the part of co-co-accused Godak Tamin (A1) with the support of the appellant where by the co-accused pleaded alibi stating that he had never visited the house of the appellant on the incident night, but nothing was brought on record to show that the accused A1 did not visit A2 and that A1 was not at the place of occurrence at Radum village on that day. Therefore, in our view, the learned Trial Court was right in rejecting the said defence also. 19. Section 16 of the POCSO Act reads as under: “16. Therefore, in our view, the learned Trial Court was right in rejecting the said defence also. 19. Section 16 of the POCSO Act reads as under: “16. Abetment of an office- A personabets an offence who- First: Instigate any person to do that offence; or Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that offence, if an act or illegal omission take place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that offence; or Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that offence.” Similarly, Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under: “109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment. - Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.” 20. On appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would clearly establish that the appellant has intentionally extended aid and facilitated co-accused A1 to commit forceful sexual intercourse on the minor victim. The evidence on record established that for two consecutive nights the appellant took the victim child to her house and let the co-accused sleep with her and commit forceful sexual intercourse with her under threat. The appellant fully knowing that the co-accused was sleeping with the victim child and making noise due to the resistance made by the child victim had intentionally aided by illegal omission merely giving warning to them to sleep without making noise. This act of illegal omission, she had done after she have had a discussion with the co-accused A1 before commission of the offence inside her room. The act of omission and the acts committed by the appellant which are duly proved by the victim and other prosecution witnesses, in our view, proves that the appellant was abettor and she abated co-accused Godak Tamin A1 to commit rape on the minor victim. 21. On our appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence relied, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 21. On our appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence relied, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we answered the point raised in the present criminal appeal in affirmative holding that the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Ziro is justified and does not warrant interference by this Court. 22. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed and as a result, the impugned order and judgment convicting the accused is hereby affirmed. 23. However, considering the mitigating factors submitted for the reduction of sentence on the ground that the appellant is a single parent of 5 (five) minor children, including a breastfeeding baby, and that she has already spent about a year in custody during the investigation and after her conviction on 30.03.2023 in execution of the sentence against her, and also considering that the charge proved against the accused/appellant is that of an abettor, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be best served if the sentence against the appellant is reduced to 3 (three) years of rigorous imprisonment. 24. Accordingly, the sentence against the appellant, Godak Sappi is reduced to a period of 3 (three) years of rigorous imprisonment. The rest of the order in the impugned judgment will remain unchanged. With the aforementioned modification in the sentence, the Criminal Appeal No. 17(AP)/2023 stands disposed of. 25. Send back the Trial Court records.