Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1456 (GAU)

Lalruatfela S/o Lalnunthara v. State of Mizoram

2025-08-28

NELSON SAILO, YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER

body2025
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : (Nelson Sailo, Judge) Heard Mr. Lalramdinthara, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Ms. Emily L. Chhangte, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No.2. [2.] This is an appeal filed by the appellant from jail against the judgment and order dated 07.08.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012, Aizawl District, Aizawl in SC No. 96/2020 arising out of Criminal Trial No.1409/2020, whereby, the appellant was convicted under Section 376(3) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and thereafter sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20(twenty) years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only separately for conviction under Section 376 (3) IPC and for conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act with a default clause. Both the sentences have however been directed to run concurrently. [3.] Mr. Lalramdinthara, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the impugned conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant cannot be sustained in view of the fact that there are inconsistencies in the deposition of the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief and in her cross-examination. He submits that the grandmother of the prosecutrix was examined as PW-2 during trial and in her examination-in-chief she stated that the incident happened on 23.06.2020 when the victim went to the jhum field along with the accused. However, in her cross-examination she stated that the victim told her about the alleged incident on 21.06.2020. The learned Amicus Curiae by further referring to the recorded statements of the victim under Section 164 Cr.PC submits that according to the victim she was raped for the first time during the month of March, 2020 by the appellant and thereafter on four occasions. She was raped twice at home and once in a jhum hut on the way to Lungsun. The last incident took place in the jhum hut which she visited with her father. The learned Amicus Curiae therefore submits that since there are inconsistencies in the statements given by the victim, she does not qualify as a sterling witness and therefore, the appellant should be given the benefit of doubt and acquitted from the charge. In support of his submission, the learned Amicus Curiae relies upon the case of Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu Vs. State (NCT Of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21. In support of his submission, the learned Amicus Curiae relies upon the case of Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu Vs. State (NCT Of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21. [4.] The learned Amicus Curiae further submits that although the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC but all the incriminating materials which appeared against him from the evidence led by the persecution was not put across to him during his examination. The same has also cause prejudice to the appellant. He further submits that the medical evidence with the finding of spermatozoa in the vagina of the victim is not conclusive as the same has not been matched with that of the appellant. Moreover, no fresh injury was seen at the vaginal opening and likewise there was no external injury on the victim. Under the circumstance, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant cannot be sustained and the same should be interfered with by this Court. [5.] Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that the inconsistencies pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae are only minor in nature and does not go to the root of the matter. She submits that in case of rape, the victim has to be treated as an injured witness and the Court cannot be swayed by minor inconsistencies. Even in case of any doubt, the Court may look for other evidences for assurance but short of corroboration. She submits that the victim undisputedly was a minor at the time of the incident and she had hesitantly narrated about the incident upon being repeatedly asked by her paternal grandmother, who noticed some change in her behavior. The narration of the victim appears to be truthful, cogent and reliable. There is also no question of there being enmity in view of the fact that the victim was residing with her father and her other siblings adjacent to the house of her paternal grandmother. Moreover, there was no reason for the victim to accuse her own biological father of having committed rape upon her while being under his care. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the Apex Court has viewed a crime of such nature seriously and has held that it must invite the severest condemnation in both language and sentence. Moreover, there was no reason for the victim to accuse her own biological father of having committed rape upon her while being under his care. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the Apex Court has viewed a crime of such nature seriously and has held that it must invite the severest condemnation in both language and sentence. That to entertain a plea for leniency in a case of such nature would not merely be misplaced but it would constitute a betrayal of the Court’s own constitutional duty to protect the vulnerable. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor by further referring to the medical examination report of the victim submits that the report clearly states that the victim was sexually abused/raped with ejaculation inside her vagina as was confirmed by the laboratory report. Therefore, having regard to the evidence of the victim and the other prosecution witnesses, there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that the appellant had committed rape upon the victim. Under the circumstance, the appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court and the same should be upheld by this Court by dismissing the appeal. In support of her submission, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor relies upon the following authorities: (i) Lok Mal Alias Loku Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2025) 4 SCC 470 and (ii) Order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP (Crl) Diary No. 33114/2025 ( Bhanei Prasad Alias Raju Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh ). [6.] Ms. Emily L. Chhangte, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No.2 submits she adopts the arguments advanced by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. She submits that it is well settled by now that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the Court should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. In fact, seeking corroboration to a statement before relying upon it as a rule would literary amount to adding insult to injury. She submits that the discrepancy pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae being minor in nature can very well be ignored since the entire testimony of the victim taken as a whole inspires confidence. In fact, seeking corroboration to a statement before relying upon it as a rule would literary amount to adding insult to injury. She submits that the discrepancy pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae being minor in nature can very well be ignored since the entire testimony of the victim taken as a whole inspires confidence. She therefore submits the impugned judgment and order should be upheld and the appeal should be dismissed. In support of her submission, the learned Legal Aid Counsel relies upon the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sanjay Kumar Alias Sunny reported in ( 2017) 2 SCC 51. [7.] We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and we have perused the materials available on record. In order to find out as to whether the impugned judgment and order can be sustained or not, let us examine the evidence laid by the prosecution during the trial. [8.] The PW-1 is the complainant and mother of the victim. In her examination- in-chief, she stated that she knows the appellant who was before the Court and that he was her husband. The victim is her daughter born out of her wedlock with the appellant on 02.04.2007. That she and her husband got divorced in January, 2020 and thereafter, the appellant and the victim were living at Vervek village and she was in Chawlhhmun, Aizawl. She stated that on 23.06.2020, the appellant had penetrative sexual assault with the victim at the jhum hut and he threatened her not to disclose about the incident to anyone. When the victim came home she looked very sad at the same time angry from her appearance. Noticing this, her paternal grandmother asked her as to why she was behaving in that manner and on being asked persistently, the victim disclosed that the appellant had sexually assaulted her in the jhum hut. She also stated that the appellant even on earlier occasions had committed penetrative sexual assault upon her and threatened her not to disclose the same to anyone. She also stated that the appellant even on earlier occasions had committed penetrative sexual assault upon her and threatened her not to disclose the same to anyone. Upon coming to learn what had happened, the younger brother of the appellant was informed and who upon hearing about the incident was very angry and on the same day, he went to New Vervek Outpost, and then a complaint was lodged at Sawkawrdai P.S. The verbal complaint was taken down in writing by the police where PW-1 put her thumb impression on the FIR. The original Birth Certificate of the victim was taken from her by the Police and was returned back to her by the Court. In her cross examination, PW-1 reiterated what she had stated in her examination-in-chief. [9.] PW-2 is the paternal grandmother of the victim and in her examination-in-chief, she stated that the appellant and her ex daughter-in-law had three children born out of their wedlock and the victim was the eldest. On 23.06.2020, the appellant and the victim went to the jhum field and in the evening, the victim came back with tears in her eyes. Since she noticed that the victim was not herself, she tried to find out what was troubling her and finally the victim said that the appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault upon her at the jhum hut. She then informed the uncle of the victim to come to their house for discussion. The uncle of the victim came and he was very angry upon hearing about the incident and he proceeded to Vervek Outpost to lodge a complaint. Subsequently, the appellant was arrested by the police. In her cross examination, apart from reiterating what was stated in her examination-in-chief, PW-2 stated that the victim told her about the alleged incident on 21.06.2020. [10.] PW-3 in her examination-in-chief stated that she knew the accused person as they were from the same village and she was the MHIP President of New Vervek during the year 2020. On 23.06.2020 while she was at home, one policeman entered and informed her that there was an incident of rape committed upon a minor in the village and invited her to assist/accompany them to Sawkawrdai Police Station. On the way to Sawkawrdai Police Station she asked the victim what happened to her and she reluctantly informed that the appellant had committed rape upon her. On the way to Sawkawrdai Police Station she asked the victim what happened to her and she reluctantly informed that the appellant had committed rape upon her. In her cross-examination, PW-3 reiterated what she stated in her examination-in-chief. [11.] PW-5 is a seizure witness who had witness the seizure of the Birth Certificate of the victim and he was the President of Young Mizo Association, New Vervek at the time of the incident. [12.] PW-6 is the Medical Officer who had examined both the victim as well as the appellant after the registration of the case. In his examination-in-chief, PW-6 stated that he was posted as a Medical Officer at Sawkawrdai CHC on 23.06.2020 when he received a requisition from Sawkawrdai Police Station to examine the victim who was alleged to have been sexually assaulted. He stated that the victim who was aged about 13 years was brought to the CHC by a lady constable and he performed the examination. Upon being asked about the history, the Police Personnel as well as the victim stated that at around 11:00 am, the appellant had raped the victim in the jhum hut. That it was not the first offence and the appellant had raped her on two earlier occasions but she did not speak out as she was threatened. PW-6 stated that he did not find any fresh injury but he found semen in the vagina of the victim from a swab which was taken and examined in the laboratory. His findings therefore was that the victim was raped and the ejaculation inside her vagina was confirmed by the laboratory report. In his cross-examination, PW-6 stated that the lack of visible physical injuries upon the accused could be because of the threat made to her. That the CHC did not have the facilities to compare the sperm of the accused with that of the sperm found in the vagina of the victim. However, despite lack of facilities, the history of the case clearly indicated that the sperm found in the vagina of the victim belongs to the appellant. [13.] PW-7 is the case I.O. and his examination-in-chief he stated that he was posted at New Vervek Police Outpost as an In-Charge of the said Outpost in the year 2019 till the month of September, 2020. [13.] PW-7 is the case I.O. and his examination-in-chief he stated that he was posted at New Vervek Police Outpost as an In-Charge of the said Outpost in the year 2019 till the month of September, 2020. On 23.06.2020 at 03:00 PM while he was on duty, he received a written FIR from PW-1, who stated that her ex-husband (the appellant) had committed penetrative sexual assault with her daughter on the same day inside the jhum hut and her daughter was aged about 13 years. It was further stated in the FIR that the appellant had threatened the victim not to disclose about the incident. That prior to the incident in the month of May, 2020, the appellant had also committed penetrative sexual assault with the victim multiple times. As a result, Sawkawrdai P.S Case No. 6/2020 under Section 376 (3) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act was registered and PW-7 took up the investigation. During the investigation, the PW-6 examined the complainant and the victim and recorded their statements. He also forwarded the victim to CHC Sawkawrdai for medical examination. He also received the medical examination report of the victim which showed that the victim was sexually abused/raped with ejaculation inside her vagina as confirmed by the laboratory report. That they arrested the accused, examined and recorded his statement and the accused had also admitted to his guilt. He also seize the original Birth Certificate of the victim in presence of reliable witnesses and her Date of Birth as per the Birth Certificate was 02.04.2007. Upon filing a prima facie case under Section 376 (3) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, PW-7 submitted the charge-sheet. [14.] PW-8 is the victim who stated in her examination-in-chief that the appellant was her biological father and she has one younger brother and one younger sister. She also stated that she was born on 02.04.2007 and that her parents had divorced. She stated that while she was staying with her father, he had sexually assaulted her by having penetrative sex in their residence on two or three occasions while her younger siblings were not at home. She protested but her father threatened her not to disclose about the incident to anyone or she would face the consequences. She stated that while she was staying with her father, he had sexually assaulted her by having penetrative sex in their residence on two or three occasions while her younger siblings were not at home. She protested but her father threatened her not to disclose about the incident to anyone or she would face the consequences. That the last incident happened on 23.06.2020 at the jhum hut when she had followed her father to collect vegetables at New Vervek. On the day of the incident, she went home crying and at home her paternal grandmother asked her why she came home so early and why she look scared and sick from her appearance. When her grandmother persisted to know the reason, she informed her that she was sexually assaulted by her father at the jhum hut and she felt frightened and sick. Her grandmother then informed her mother who was fortunately available in the village at the relevant time and she quickly came to their house. They then informed her uncle about the incident and then he went to Vervek Outpost where he was advised to lodge a FIR at Sawkawrdai Police Station. Accordingly, her mother lodged the FIR on the same day i.e., 23.06.2020. The police recorded her statement and she was also forwarded to the Court in Aizawl where her statement was recorded by a lady Magistrate. She was also forwarded to Sawkawrdai CHC and she was medically examined by a doctor. [15.] After the prosecution witnesses were examined, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC wherein, he denied of having committed sexual assault upon the victim. Upon being asked as to whether he had any witness to examine in his defense and as to whether he had anything to say before the Court, his reply was in the negative. [16.] From the evidence laid by the prosecution, it can be seen that the victim had informed about the sexual assault/rape committed upon her firstly to her paternal grandmother on 23.06.2020 after she returned back from the jhum field where she had gone with her father to collect vegetables. The paternal grandmother of the victim was examined as PW-2 who stated that she noticed the victim coming back from the jhum filed with tears in her eyes and in a very irritable mood. The paternal grandmother of the victim was examined as PW-2 who stated that she noticed the victim coming back from the jhum filed with tears in her eyes and in a very irritable mood. When she asked the victim as to what was wrong with her, the victim did not want to say anything but when she persisted, she informed her that appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault upon her at the jhum hut. She then informed the uncle of the victim who then came over to their house and thereafter proceeded to New Vervek Outpost. It may be seen that the version of the victim who was examined as PW-8 corroborates with that of PW-1, who is her mother and with PW-2, who is her paternal grandmother amongst other prosecution witnesses. Although their appears to be some discrepancy on the date when the victim had informed her grandmother i.e., 23.06.2020 having been mentioned as 21.06.2020 in the cross-examination of the PW-2, but it may be seen that in the evidence of all other prosecution witnesses including the victim herself, the last date on which the incident happened was said to be on 23.06.2020 and it was on the same day that the FIR was lodged and the victim medically examined. Therefore, the discrepancy is only a minor discrepancy and can very well be ignored and particularly when it does not go to the root of the matter as rightly pointed out by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Absence of injury whether internal or external also cannot be the ground to disbelieve the version of the victim inasmuch as, there is no narration of any violence resorted to by the appellant during the time of the incident. The evidence also goes to show that the appellant had threatened the victim of consequences if she narrated about the incident to anyone. Likewise, the evidence also goes to show that it was not the first incident of commission of penetrative sexual assault upon the victim on 23.06.2020 but on several other earlier occasions. Therefore, the same explains lack of fresh injury in the private part of the victim. Likewise, the evidence also goes to show that it was not the first incident of commission of penetrative sexual assault upon the victim on 23.06.2020 but on several other earlier occasions. Therefore, the same explains lack of fresh injury in the private part of the victim. Both the medical report as well as the laboratory report shows that there was ejaculation inside the vagina of the victim and even in the absence of any comparison as to whether the same indeed belonged to the appellant, the evidence is on record goes to show that the appellant had imposed himself upon the prosecutrix. [17.] Reliance has been placed to the case of Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu (Supra) by the learned Amicus Curiae to contend that the prosecutrix cannot be considered to be sterling witness in order to sustain the conviction. However, it may be seen that the facts in the present case and the facts in Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu (Supra) are not similar. The latter was in respect of the allegation of gang rape wherein, there were multiple inconsistencies in the story of the prosecutrix. The Apex Court in the given facts and circumstances of the case found that there were material variations in the complaint and the deposition of the prosecutrix in the Court as regards the identification of the accused persons as well as in the manner in which the occurrence took place. In fact, the so called eye witnesses, who were examined as PW-10 and PW-11 and who were supposed to be the niece and nephew of the prosecutrix and who were present in the house when the incident allegedly took place did not support the story of the prosecution. Also the recoveries made failed to tally with the statements made. It was under such circumstance and background that the Apex Court found the prosecutrix not to be sterling witness. However, in the present case, as may be noticed there are no inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution witnesses which strikes at the very core of the allegation. [18.] The Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. It was under such circumstance and background that the Apex Court found the prosecutrix not to be sterling witness. However, in the present case, as may be noticed there are no inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution witnesses which strikes at the very core of the allegation. [18.] The Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 held that the Courts should examine the broader probabilities of the case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out and otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of our statement in material particulars. If for some reason, the Court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may land assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplish. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the Trial Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with a case involving sexual molestations. [19.] Further, the Apex Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1983) 3 SCC 217 observed that in Indian setting, refusal to Act on the testimonial victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? [20.] By applying the above principles of law to the facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the testimony of the prosecutrix is trustworthy and leaves no shadow of doubt to discredit her case. Moreover, the appellant has failed to rebut or falsify the evidence laid by the prosecution during the trial in any manner. The appellant has also failed to produce any witness in his defense despite being given the opportunity. Moreover, the appellant has failed to rebut or falsify the evidence laid by the prosecution during the trial in any manner. The appellant has also failed to produce any witness in his defense despite being given the opportunity. As held by the Apex Court in Bhanei Prasad Alias Raju (Supra), when a father who is expected to be a shield, a guardian, a moral compass, becomes the source of the most severe violation of a child’s bodily integrity and dignity, the betrayal is not only personal but institutional. The law does not, and cannot, condone such acts under the guise of rehabilitation or reform. Incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent is a distinct category of offence that tears through the foundational fabric of familial trust and must invite the severest condemnation in both language and sentence. The home, which should be a sanctuary, cannot be permitted to become a site of unspeakable trauma, and the Courts must send a clear signal that such offences will be met with an equally unsparing judicial response. To entertain a plea for leniency in a case of this nature would not merely be misplaced, it would constitute a betrayal of the Court’s own constitutional duty to protect the vulnerable. When a child is forced to suffer at the hands of her own father, the law must speak in a voice that is resolute and uncompromising. There can be no mitigation in sentencing for crimes that subvert the very notion of family as a space of security. [21.] Likewise, even in the present case, the conduct and atrocity committed by the appellant upon his own biological daughter is condemnable and cannot be condoned by any means whatsoever. [22.] Thus, under the facts and circumstances and upon due consideration of the case in its entirety, we do not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. [23.] For the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Lalramdinthara, the learned Amicus Curiae, the Mizoram State Legal Services Authority shall pay him the fee as per the prescribed rate. [24.] Registry to send back the LCR immediately.