Vanlalrawngbawla Kawnpui Vengthar v. State of Mizoram
2025-01-22
MARLIVANKUNG, NELSON SAILO
body2025
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : (Nelson Sailo, J.) Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2. [2.] This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the Judgment & Order dated 21.11.2023 passed by the Court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge -cum- Judge, Fast Track Court, Kolasib in Sessions Case (K) No. 19/2022 corresponding to Criminal Trial No. 56/2022 convicting the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and thereafter, vide order dated 07.12.2023 sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a default clause. [3.] The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15.01.2022, the mother of the victim submitted an FIR in Kawnpui Police Station stating that her daughter who is a minor was sexually assaulted by her school Headmaster (the appellant) in the early hours of 15.01.2022 at around 1:30 AM inside the office of the Headmaster, Lalfak Memorial High School, Kawnpui. As a result, Kawnpui P.S Case No. 1/2022 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act dated 15.01.2022 was registered and investigation was conducted. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer (I/O) visited the place of occurrence and examined the complainant and the other witnesses and recorded their statements. Both the appellant as well as the victim were sent for medical check-up and the statements of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC. Consequently, the I/O upon finding a prima facie case well established against the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, submitted the chargesheet before the Court and following the same, charge was framed against the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act on 19.07.2022 and to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Therefore, the trial commenced and during which, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses, including the prosecutrix while four (4) defense witnesses were examined by the defense. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and upon hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as already stated herein above. [4.] Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel submits that the arguments that he will be making are mainly on three (3) grounds.
The appellant was also examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and upon hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as already stated herein above. [4.] Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel submits that the arguments that he will be making are mainly on three (3) grounds. Firstly, the testimony of the victim is not corroborated. Secondly, the medical evidence is without any final report and thirdly, the age of the victim has not been proved since the Birth Certificate was not proved in accordance with law. The learned counsel also submits that from the evidence, it appears that there was some enmity between the family of the victim and the appellant and therefore, there is every likelihood that the appellant has been framed. He also submits that without there being corroboration to the version of the prosecutrix, her testimony alone cannot be relied upon since the victim does not meet the standard of a sterling witness. He also submits that the evidence of the Doctor who examined the prosecutrix is not reliable and that during cross- examination, the Doctor who was examined as PW-11 stated that the sign suggestive of vaginal intercourse could have been caused or might have been caused two (2) months ago and that since she was having menstruation, proper examination could not be done. In so far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, none of the prosecution witnesses exhibited the Birth Certificate of the prosecutrix during the trial although on the body of the Birth Certificate, it has been marked as Exhibit P-V. He submits that merely exhibiting or marking of the document as exhibit does not serve the purpose unless the Birth Certificate is proved in accordance with law. He submits that not only the Certificate is required to be proved but also, its contents which otherwise is missing in the instant case. In view of the Birth Certificate not having been proved in accordance with law, the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and the consequential order of sentence is not sustainable in law and should be set aside. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the following authorities:- (i) Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2020) 3 SCC 443 (ii) Manirul Islam Vs. State of Assam & Anr.
In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the following authorities:- (i) Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2020) 3 SCC 443 (ii) Manirul Islam Vs. State of Assam & Anr. 2021 (3) GLT 128 (iii) Vijay -Vs- Union of India & Ors 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1585 and (iv) Judgment & Order dated 16.08.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 23/2023 (Sh. Lalfakzuala Hrahsel -Vs- State of Mizoram & 2 Ors.) [5.] Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no question of there being false accusation against the appellant due to the enmity between the family of the prosecutrix and the appellant. She submits that the same is only a theory invented by the appellant and the defence witnesses by referring to certain grudge which cropped up during the Covid-19 times. However, the defense witnesses themselves have clearly stated that the same was only a hypothetical assumption and there was no evidence to back up such assumptions. She therefore submits that there is no basis for making such allegation about enmity between the families concerned. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there were six (6) students who slept in the same room i.e., the office room of the Headmaster of the school who were also examined as prosecution witnesses and that they have clearly proved the case against the appellant. The fact of the appellant having slept between the appellant and her classmate has clearly been proved. PW-6 stated that she had the experience of being touched by the appellant and in the next morning, the prosecutrix informed her what the appellant did to her during the night. The version of the prosecutrix is clearly corroborated by the version of PW-6 and PW-7. PW-7, 8, 9 & 10 all slept in the same room and their versions are one and the same. PW-7 saw the prosecutrix weeping in Class-X room the next morning and that she and the prosecutrix qualify to be sterling witnesses. [6.] The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that there is no reason as to why the medical report should not be accepted or to term it as incomplete in view of the fact that according to the prosecutrix herself, the appellant did not complete the sexual act by ejaculating.
[6.] The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that there is no reason as to why the medical report should not be accepted or to term it as incomplete in view of the fact that according to the prosecutrix herself, the appellant did not complete the sexual act by ejaculating. She did not struggle when the appellant made his advance as the appellant was their Headmaster and she respected him very much and that she was afraid to scream or shout out loud. Moreover, the prosecutrix was having her menstruation and for which reason, the medical examination could not be conclusively done. However, the same cannot be a ground to disbelief the statements made by the prosecutrix about the appellant having committed forced sexual intercourse upon her. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that in view of what had happened, there was no reason for the prosecutrix to have any form of injury. She submits that in case of rape, absence of injury is not always fatal. In this connection, she relies upon the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Chhotey Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 550 . [7.] The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that although the Birth Certificate was not exhibited by the prosecution witnesses, the same cannot be doubted. She submits that in the body of the Birth Certificate, it is written that the same is exhibited as Exhibit P-V and dated 03.08.2022. PW-1, who is the complainant and the mother of the prosecutrix had made her deposition before the Court on 03.08.2022 and therefore, it only appears that the Birth Certificate was not exhibited due to oversight. She submits that at any rate, the Birth Certificate is a pubic document issued by the competent authority, authorized by law and therefore, the same cannot be doubted. She also submits that as per the FIR, the age of the prosecutrix has been stated as 17 years and she was therefore a minor at the time of commission of the crime. She also submits that the theory of enmity raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has no basis in view of the fact that had there being some sort of enmity between the families, the prosecutrix would not have slept near the appellant or the appellant would not have slept near the prosecutrix.
She also submits that the theory of enmity raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has no basis in view of the fact that had there being some sort of enmity between the families, the prosecutrix would not have slept near the appellant or the appellant would not have slept near the prosecutrix. She submits that it is also in evidence that the appellant had given the prosecutrix some cough syrup after he noticed her coughing on the night of the incident. Therefore, there is no basis to the claim that there was enmity between the families. [8.] Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned Legal Aid Counsel adopts that argument of the learned Public Prosecutor. He further submits that the versions of all the six (6) students who slept in the same room on the night of the incident are similar. Similarly, the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC and during the trial are similar. He submits that it is a settled position in law that the statement of the victim in a rape case requires no corroboration if the same is found to be reliable and trustworthy. He submits that testimony of the prosecutrix in the instant case is also consistent before the trial and during the trial and therefore, her statement alone can be relied upon to convict the appellant. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sanjay Kumar alias Sunny (2017) 2 SCC 51 . [9.] Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned Legal Aid Counsel further submits that from the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 during their cross-examination, the allegation that there was enmity between the families of the parties concerned is only an assumption without there being any evidence to back up the same. In so far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the same has never been questioned by the defense at any stage before and during the trial. Therefore, it is not open for him to question the same at this stage and for the first time.
In so far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the same has never been questioned by the defense at any stage before and during the trial. Therefore, it is not open for him to question the same at this stage and for the first time. The learned Legal Aid Counsel submits that the Birth Certificate marked as Exhibit P-V has clearly been mentioned in paragraph No. 6 (ii) of the Judgment & Order of the Trial Court and also at Serial No. 11 of the list of Prosecution/Defense/Court exhibits, which is a part and parcel of the judgment of the Trial Court. He therefore submits that the prosecution has clearly established the case against the appellant and therefore, the impugned Judgment & Order may not be interfered with by this Court and the appeal should be dismissed. [10.] The prosecution in order to prove their case cited as many as 16 witnesses while the defence cited 4 defence witnesses. The prosecution however examined only 12 prosecution witnesses and the defence examined all the 4 defence witnessed. In order to see whether the conviction and sentence of the appellant can be sustained, we may examine the evidence led during the trial. [11.] PW-1 Smt. Mary Malsawmkimi, who is the mother of the prosecutrix was examined as PW-1. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that she knows the accused person who was present in the Court. That on 15.01.2020 at 1:30 am, her daughter aged 17 years, who was attending study camp in their school campus Lalfak Memorial High School, Kawnpui, Bangla Veng was forcefully raped by the Headmaster (the appellant) and she therefore lodged an FIR at Kawnpui Police Station on the same day. She exhibited the FIR and her signature as Exhibit P1 and P1(a). In her cross-examination, PW-1 stated that she came to know about the incident on being informed by her daughter and that her husband was also present while she was narrating about the incident. She stated as far as she knew, her daughter did not drink Soju. That she personally did not know whether the accused assaulted the victim by inserting his penis inside the vagina of her daughter. [12.] The prosecutrix was examined as PW-2 by the prosecution.
She stated as far as she knew, her daughter did not drink Soju. That she personally did not know whether the accused assaulted the victim by inserting his penis inside the vagina of her daughter. [12.] The prosecutrix was examined as PW-2 by the prosecution. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that she knows the accused person, who was present in the Court and that he was the Headmaster of Lalfak Memorial High School, Kawnpui, Bangla Veng. She stated that she was studying in Class-X in the said school during the academic session of 2021-2022. In the month of January, 2022, they had a study camp in their school as their exam was approaching near. She along with her two friends and three boys slept in the office of their Headmaster. On the night of 14.01.2022 at 10:00 PM after their study period was over, their Headmaster and one of her friend i.e., Zomuanpuii (PW-6) went out to get some snacks and meanwhile, they were preparing their bedding to sleep. Her friend and the Headmaster came back around 11:00 PM and they had a short chat. Their Headmaster soon asked the boys to go to bed and thereafter, he slept between her and Zomuanpuii. She was under the impression that he would leave them after few minutes but instead, he asked her to get her pillow and he shared her blanket. As she was coughing very often, he gave her medicine. During this time, most of her friends were asleep. After a few minutes, he hugged her and caressed her. He also kissed her on her lips and touched her breast. He then removed his pants and also forcefully removed her pants and then raped her. While doing so, as one of her friend spoke aloud, he stopped his actions. That as he was their Headmaster, she respected him very much and even when he did such things to her, she was afraid to scream or shout out aloud. In her cross-examination, PW- 2 stated that there were other students inside the room at the time of the incident and that the accused slept between her and her friend named Zomuanpuii. She also stated that it was a fact that the accused person was drinking Soju on that night as he showed all of them the green bottle of Soju.
She also stated that it was a fact that the accused person was drinking Soju on that night as he showed all of them the green bottle of Soju. She further stated that it was a fact that no one inside the room had seen or witnessed the incident because all the students including herself were already asleep. She stated that it was a fact that she had sexual intercourse with her boyfriend earlier. [13.] Sh. Andrew Lalchungnunga was examined as PW-3. In his examination-in- chief, he stated that on 15.01.2022 at 7:30 PM, Kawnpui Police came to the house of the prosecutrix at Kawnpui Vengthar and seized the Birth Certificate of the prosecutrix. He was present when the seizure was made and therefore, he stood as a witness (seizure witness). He exhibited his signature as Exhibit P IV(b). In his cross-examination, he stated that it was a fact that he did not read the contents of the Birth Certificate of the victim when the seizure was made and that he was not deposing falsely before the Court. [14.] Sh. K. Lalawmpuia was examined as PW-4 by the prosecution. Similar to PW-3, PW-4 stood as the seizure witness for the seizure of the Birth Certificate of the prosecutrix. His statements in his examination-in-chief as well as in the cross-examination are similar and identical to that of PW-3. [15.] Smt. Lalruatfeli was examined as PW-5 by the prosecution. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that she has been working as a Mathematics teacher in Lalfak Memorial High School, Kawnpui, Bangla Veng since October, 2018. They had organized a study camp for Class-X students starting from 12.01.2022. During the night, she slept with the girls in the Class-X room while the boys slept by themselves in Class-IX room. As three boys and three girls could not fit in the said class room, they slept inside the Headmaster’s room along with the Headmaster himself. The prosecutrix was one amongst the students who slept in the Headmaster’s office. On the night of the incident i.e., 15.01.2022, she was also at the school but she did not know what actually happened as she slept in a different room. In the morning, she asked the prosecutrix about what had happened to her and what the Headmaster did to her and to which she replied the Headmaster had sexually assaulted her.
On the night of the incident i.e., 15.01.2022, she was also at the school but she did not know what actually happened as she slept in a different room. In the morning, she asked the prosecutrix about what had happened to her and what the Headmaster did to her and to which she replied the Headmaster had sexually assaulted her. Thereafter, she informed the matter to her colleague. PW-5 exhibited her signature as Exhibit P VII(a). In her cross- examination, PW-5 stated that as she slept in a different room on the said night, she knew nothing about the incident. [16.] Zomuanpuii, the classmate of the prosecutrix was examined as PW-6 by the prosecution. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that he knows the accused who was present in the Court. She was studying in Class-X at Lalfak Memorial High School, Kawnpui, Bangla Veng during the academic session 2021-2022 and the accused person was their Headmaster. On the night of the alleged incident, after their study period was over, she went out with their Headmaster to buy Pulao. On their way, the accused person drank Soju and they went back to their school where they shared the snacks they bought with other students. After the snacks were consumed, the accused went to the other room and asked the students to sleep. She along with five other students two girls and three boys slept in the office of the Headmaster and the Headmaster also slept in the same room with them. The Headmaster slept between herself and the prosecutrix. He requested the prosecutrix to get his pillow and blanket and he shared his blanket with the prosecutrix. Shortly after that, she fell asleep and when she awoke, the Headmaster hugged her and she was able to turn over against him. After that, the Headmaster tried to hug her again and she managed to avoid his hug. He also tried every means to take hold of her but he was not successful as she moved away from his side. He then turn towards the prosecutrix and thereafter, she went to sleep. In the morning, the prosecutrix told her that the Headmaster had sexually assaulted her and she also shared her story about what he had done to her. She stated that the prosecutrix told her that she had not only been sexually assaulted but was destroyed by him.
He then turn towards the prosecutrix and thereafter, she went to sleep. In the morning, the prosecutrix told her that the Headmaster had sexually assaulted her and she also shared her story about what he had done to her. She stated that the prosecutrix told her that she had not only been sexually assaulted but was destroyed by him. PW-6 stated that she did not shout when the Headmaster was hugging her during the night as she thought that he was not doing it intentionally. However, in the morning when she learned about what he had done to the prosecutrix, she came to know that he had acted with a bad intention. PW-6 also stated that before the incident, she had also learn from their seniors that they should not be near the Headmaster during study camp and thereby, conveying their bad impression on him. In her cross-examination, PW-6 stated that she is not sure whether the Headmaster had sexually assaulted the prosecutrix or not. She reiterated that it was a fact that she was hugged by the Headmaster on the night of the incident and that she had slept alongside the Headmaster on the night of 15.01.2022. [17.] Esther Lalrochhari, a student of Class-X at Lalfak Memorial High School, Kawnpui, Bangla Veng was examined as PW-7. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that she was studying in Class-X in the said school during the academic session 2021-2022 and in the month of January, 2022, they had a study camp at the school campus. Most of the girls were sleeping inside the Class-X room and the boys were sleeping in Class-IX room. She along with two girls and three boys slept in the office of the Headmaster with the Headmaster himself. She mentioned the names of the two other girls who slept in the same room, who were the prosecutrix and PW-6. She stated that at around 10:00 PM after the study period was over, they were preparing their beddings and were about to sleep. At that time, one of the teacher Miss Tetei came to their room and asked for something to eat as she was hungry. Their Headmaster and PW-6 went out of the school campus to buy some food and after they returned, they shared the same and thereafter, they went to sleep.
At that time, one of the teacher Miss Tetei came to their room and asked for something to eat as she was hungry. Their Headmaster and PW-6 went out of the school campus to buy some food and after they returned, they shared the same and thereafter, they went to sleep. PW-7 stated that PW-6 told her that their Headmaster drank some liquor when they went out of the school campus. The Headmaster slept between the prosecutrix and PW-6 and soon after that someone in the room had switched off the lights. At around 4:00 AM in the morning, she awoke and saw their Headmaster still sleeping between PW-6 and the prosecutrix and then she went back to sleep. Thereafter, when she woke up in the morning, she saw the prosecutrix weeping/crying inside the Class-X room besides Zualtei. The prosecutrix told her that their Headmaster had molested her during the night and she did not have proper sleep. In her cross-examination, PW-7 stated that their Headmaster was very sincere in his work by seeing his sincerity and keenness towards his work, she could not believe that he would commit such kind of sexual crime upon his students. She also stated that had there been sexual intercourse in the room where they were all sleeping, atleast one of them would have known or heard sound of such commission of crime. There was therefore a chance that the accused was falsely implicated for commission of the said crime. [18.] Lalawmpuia, who is also one of the Class-X student sleeping in the Headmaster’s room on the night of the incident was examined as PW-8. His statements in his examination-in-chief were more or less similar to that of PW-7. However, he additionally stated that he knew that their Headmaster was drunk on the night of the incident. In the morning when he awoke, he saw their Headmaster still sleeping between the prosecutrix and PW-6. One of his friends Lalremruata, who was also sleeping in the same room told him that their Headmaster had molested the prosecutrix. The statements of PW-8 in his cross-examination are similar and identical to what PW-7 had stated in her cross-examination. [19.] Jonathan Lalhmangaihsanga (PW-9) also a student of Class-X of the said school was one of the boys who also slept in the room of the Headmaster on the night of the incident.
The statements of PW-8 in his cross-examination are similar and identical to what PW-7 had stated in her cross-examination. [19.] Jonathan Lalhmangaihsanga (PW-9) also a student of Class-X of the said school was one of the boys who also slept in the room of the Headmaster on the night of the incident. His statements during his examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination are similar and identical to what PW-8 had stated during his examination. Similarly, the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Lalremruata (PW-10), a student of Class-X of the said school who was also sleeping in the Headmaster’s room on the night of the incident is similar to the statements made by PW-8 & 9. The only difference is that according to PW-10, on the next morning after the incident happened, the prosecutrix approached him and told him that she was sexually assaulted by their Headmaster and to which he suggested that she should inform Miss Tetei about the matter. [20.] Dr. C. Lalnunpuia, Medical Officer, Kawnpui PHC was examined as PW-11. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that on 15.01.2022 at 2:30 PM, the prosecutrix who was alleged to be a victim of sexual assault was brought to Kawnpui PHC for medical examination by one female police. Before conducting the investigation, he interrogated the prosecutrix and she stated that she had been molested and sexually assaulted by their Headmaster on 15.01.2022 at around 2:00 AM while having study camp in their school campus. According to PW-11, the prosecutrix also stated that the accused had actually penetrated his penis into her vagina. After obtaining consent, he conducted medical examination on the body of the victim and found that her hymen was torn/ruptured. He also found signs of suggestive vaginal intercourse. PW-11 exhibited the Medical Examination Report and his signature as Exhibit P-X and P-X(a). In his cross-examination, he stated that it might be possible that signs of suggestive vaginal intercourse could have been caused or might have been caused two months ago while the victim was undergoing menstruation. That the vagina of the victim could not be clearly examined since she was undergoing menstruation. That there was no female Doctor at Kawnpui PHC at the time of incident.
That the vagina of the victim could not be clearly examined since she was undergoing menstruation. That there was no female Doctor at Kawnpui PHC at the time of incident. [21.] S.I Zorammawii was examined as PW-16 and in her examination-in-chief, she stated that on 15.01.2022 at around 2:00 PM, a written FIR was received from PW-1 who reported that at around 1:30 AM, her daughter, the prosecutrix who was attending study camp in their school was sexually assaulted by their school Headmaster inside the school office room. Accordingly, Kawnpui P.S Case No. 1/2022 dated 15.01.2022 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was registered and she was endorsed to investigate the case. During the investigation, she examined and recorded the statements of the complainant who stated that the prosecutrix attended a study camp in their school since 12.01.2022. Their study period started from 6:30 PM every evening and the students left the school campus every morning at 8:00 AM. On 15.01.2022, her daughter the prosecutrix reached home at 8:15 AM and at 11:00 AM, her elder daughter Teresa Zodingliani informed her mother that at 1:30 AM on the same day, the school Headmaster had sexually abused her younger sister. The family then got together and asked the prosecutrix about the incident. The prosecutrix then told them that on the night of 14.01.2022, their school Headmaster slept between herself and one of her friend and at around 1:30 AM in the morning, he raped her and being too scared, she could not shout or call for help while she was being abused. PW-16 stated that she examined the prosecutrix and recorded her statements. The prosecutrix stated that their study period started from 6:30 PM to 10:00 PM every night and from 6:30 AM to 7:30 AM every morning. They left their school every day to have breakfast in their respective home. That on 14.01.2022 after the study period was over, they all left their study room and proceeded to their respective rooms. While they were sleeping in their bed and chit chatting, their Headmaster came and slept between herself and PW-6 and he shared her quilt. Later, the accused put his hand on her shoulder and she started coughing. The accused then gave her medicine telling her that she is having a bad cold and she will be better soon and slept again between the prosecutrix and her friend.
Later, the accused put his hand on her shoulder and she started coughing. The accused then gave her medicine telling her that she is having a bad cold and she will be better soon and slept again between the prosecutrix and her friend. Later in the night, the accused again put his hand on her shoulder and started caressing her body and even kissed her. He then undressed himself, took off her clothes, got on top of her and raped her. When they heard the voice of one of their student Lalrochhari, the accused got down from the victim’s body mumbling words as if to pretend that he was sleep talking. As she was too scared of their Headmaster, she could not make any sound. The next morning, she told Ms. Ruatfeli about the incident and later when she reached home, she also told her elder sister Teresa Zodinpuii and later her sister informed their parents. According to PW-16, the prosecutrix also mentioned that the accused did not ejaculate as he was afraid that her friend Lalrochhari might come to know of his action. The prosecutrix said that she felt pain and was having period at the time of the incident. Her parents accordingly reported the matter in Kawnpui Police Station. PW-16 further stated that she also examined the accused person who stated that as proposed by the School Managing Board Committee on 12.01.2022, their school started having study camp in the school where 31 students enlisted for the camp. The camp started from 6:30 PM to 10:00 PM in the night and from 6:30 AM to 7:30 AM in the morning. All the boys and girls slept in two separate rooms except for three boys and three girls who slept in the school office under the care of the Headmaster. On 14.01.2022 at around 6:00 PM while he was proceeding towards his school, he bought two bottles of Soju. While the students were studying at 9:00 PM, he left the school for Ruben’s shop as he was hungry. He drank one bottle of Soju and returned to the school. At 10:00 PM, he along with one of his student left the school to buy chicken pulao. He again drank another bottle of Soju and returned back to the school after buying two plates of chicken pulao and two bottles of energy drink.
He drank one bottle of Soju and returned to the school. At 10:00 PM, he along with one of his student left the school to buy chicken pulao. He again drank another bottle of Soju and returned back to the school after buying two plates of chicken pulao and two bottles of energy drink. When they reached their school, he gave one plate of chicken pulao and a bottle of energy drink to Miss Lalruatfeli and the rest to his students who were sleeping in the school office. When he awoke in the morning, he found himself sleeping between the prosecutrix and PW-6. He felt very ashamed and got up quickly. After telling Miss Tetei that he had a meeting, he left the school. At 9:00 AM, after finishing VLTF committee, he went home and took bath. He kept his clothes in the washing machine and washed them. At 12:00 noon while he was lying on bench he was awakened by his wife who told him that the father of the prosecutrix had submitted an FIR against him. He along with his wife went to the house of the prosecutrix to beg for mercy. At 8:00 PM, he was summoned by the police to report himself at Kawnpui Police Station and he was arrested. He further stated that since he was under the influence of alcohol i.e., Soju, he could not recollect any of his action with regard to the incident. PW-16 stated that after examining the other witnesses, she found a prima facie case under Section 6 of the POCSO Act to be well established against the accused and therefore, she submitted the chargesheet. [22.] PW-16 in his cross-examination stated that it was a fact that on the night of the incident, the accused slept between the victim and PW-6. The other students who attended the study camp also slept in the same room. Though they all slept under the roof of the same room, no one knew about the said incident. He stated that it was a fact that the accused pleaded not guilty while she was investigating into the matter. The accused told her that he drank Soju on the night of the incident and that he did not know whether he got drunk or not. He also stated it was a fact that the complainant submitted the FIR out of hatred.
The accused told her that he drank Soju on the night of the incident and that he did not know whether he got drunk or not. He also stated it was a fact that the complainant submitted the FIR out of hatred. That it was a fact that she found a prima facie case as per the medical findings and the FSL report. [23.] C. Lalthanzuala was examined as DW-1 by the defence. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that the accused was on duty in the month of October, 2021 as the Secretary of VLTF, Kawnpui - III due to the covid pandemic. As per the order of the District Commissioner, whoever got infected by covid virus were not allowed to stay at home for home isolation. During this time, the sister of the prosecutrix was infected with the virus and they asked the VLTF duty for home isolation but as per the Deputy Commissioner’s order and as per the instruction of the medical officer, the duty members did not allow home isolation and they were asked to move to covid care center (3C) at Sethawn. As a result, the family of the prosecutrix was very angry with the accused person. He further stated that during the alleged incident, he was the member of the Board of Committees of Lalfak Memorial High School, Kawnpui and the accused was well known. He did not think that the accused person would commit such an offence as alleged. He stated that he had requested the accused person to work as Headmaster of the said school since he knew him well and that he was fit to be a Headmaster. In his opinion, the FIR submitted by the family of the prosecutrix was because they were angry about the past incident where the sister of the prosecutrix was admitted to covid care center at Sethawn. He therefore could not accept that the accused would commit such an offence and that the complaint arose out of hatred. He said that he was well known to him and as far he knows, the accused person never indulged in this type of offence. In his cross-examination, he stated that it was a fact he has no family relationship with the accused person and they know each other only through the activities of the YMA.
He said that he was well known to him and as far he knows, the accused person never indulged in this type of offence. In his cross-examination, he stated that it was a fact he has no family relationship with the accused person and they know each other only through the activities of the YMA. It was also a fact that he was not present on the spot at the time of the incident and that he was not even present near the school premises. He further stated that it was a fact that he is of the opinion that it is not possible to know about a person’s sex life or sexual urge. That it was his hypothetical assumption that the victim’s family might have taken revenge against the accused person and that he has no evidence to back his assumption. He further stated that his knowledge about the incident were all on the basis of hearsay and that he has nothing to say on the merit of the case as he was not present at the time of the incident. [24.] Sh. Chawngdingliana of Kawnpui Vengthar, Kolasib District was examined as DW-2 by the defence. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that in the month of October, 2021, he was on duty with the accused person due to covid pandemic. During this time, the sister of the prosecutrix was infected with the covid virus and as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the Doctors, no one was allowed to stay at home for home isolation on being infected by covid virus. However, the family of the prosecutrix had asked for home isolation but as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the VLTF Committee did not permit home isolation and directed the infected person to be shifted to covid care center (C-3) at Sethawn. During this time, the family of the prosecutrix was very angry with the accused person as he was the Secretary of the VLTF. They were even heard saying that they were on the receiving end for now but there will be a time when they will have an upper hand.
During this time, the family of the prosecutrix was very angry with the accused person as he was the Secretary of the VLTF. They were even heard saying that they were on the receiving end for now but there will be a time when they will have an upper hand. DW-2 also stated that he too was a member of the Managing Board Committee of Lalfak Memorial High School, Kawnpui and that he did not accept the fact that the accused person would commit such offence as he was well known to him and as far as he knew, the accused person never indulged in this type of offence. He stated that even his children went to the said school and he knows that the accused person is a truly dedicated teacher and he even heard from his children that the accused person use to teach his students about protection of women from domestic violence regularly. In his opinion, the FIR submitted by the family of the prosecutrix was because they were very angry about the past incident regarding the sister of the prosecutrix being admitted to covid care center at Sethawn. Therefore, he cannot admit that the accused person would commit such an alleged offence and that the complaint arose out of hatred. In his cross-examination, DW-2 stated that it was a fact that he has no family relationship with the accused person and they know each other only through the activities of the VLTF. He also stated that it was a fact that he was of the opinion that an intoxicated person may do what he might not have done when he is sober. That he was not present on the spot at the time of the said incident and he was not even present near the school premise. He further stated that he was of the opinion that it is not possible to know about a person’s sex life or the extent of one’s sexual urge by merely socializing with a person. Further, DW-2 stated that it was his hypothetical assumption that the victim’s family might have taken revenge against the accused person and he that he has no evidence to back up his assumption.
Further, DW-2 stated that it was his hypothetical assumption that the victim’s family might have taken revenge against the accused person and he that he has no evidence to back up his assumption. His knowledge about the incident are only based on hearsay and that he has nothing to say on the merit of the case as he was not present at time of the incident. [25.] Lalhriatzeli was examined as DW-3 by the defence witness and in her examination-in-chief, she stated that she was a student of Lalfak Memorial School, Kawnpui in the year 2021-2022 studying in Class-X and the accused was the Headmaster of the school while the prosecutrix was her classmate. On the night of 15.01.2022, she met the prosecutrix twice, firstly, in the school building at around 7:00 PM and later, outside the school building at around 11:00 PM where they went to wash their face to get ready for bed. According to DW-3, there was nothing unusual in the behavior of the prosecutrix and on the same night, she was sleeping in the room next to the room where the prosecutrix and the Headmaster slept and she did not hear any noise coming from their room. In the morning, they went to collect water from the water point and the prosecutrix also came along. She did not find anything unusual in the behavior of the prosecutrix and she was chatting normally with her friends. That during the study camp organized in the month of January, 2022, the prosecutrix was often late and the Headmaster used to advise her to be on time. Because of this, the prosecutrix was often upset with the Headmaster. Their Headmaster was a man of good moral character and he often educated the students about the importance of women’s rights and he valued this topic. According to DW-3, the accusation of rape made against the Headmaster is not reliable and he is not the kind of person who would commit such an offence as he worked hard for the welfare of the school and for the students studying in the school. In her cross-examination, DW-3 stated that she did not see the prosecutrix on the night of the incident after 11:00 PM and also did not know what happened to her. She did not sleep in the Headmaster’s room on the night of the alleged incident.
In her cross-examination, DW-3 stated that she did not see the prosecutrix on the night of the incident after 11:00 PM and also did not know what happened to her. She did not sleep in the Headmaster’s room on the night of the alleged incident. She also stated that their Headmaster never drinks alcohol but she did not test whether or not he drank alcohol on the night of the alleged incident. She admitted that on the night of the incident, the Headmaster as well as the prosecutrix slept in the Headmaster’s room. She does not have any documentary evidence to show that the Headmaster did not commit sexual offence upon the prosecutrix. [26.] Laltanpuia was examined as DW-4 by the defence and in his examination-in- chief, he stated that he studied in Class-X at Lalfak Memorial School, Kawnpui during the year 2021-2022. He was a friend of the prosecutrix since 2019 as they studied together in Shillong. He stated that he knew the prosecutrix personally and that when they had gone to the study camp together on the night of the incident, the prosecutrix was drunk. The allegation made against the accused person was completely false and he knows and believes that he is not the type of person to commit the crime that he has been accused of. On the night of the incident, he also attended the study camp and was sleeping in the class room with others. He met the prosecutrix the next morning and there was nothing unusual in her behavior. He believed that the accused person had been falsely accused because of personal and family enmity. In his cross-examination, he stated that it was a fact that on the night of the incident, their Headmaster and the prosecutrix as well as some other students slept inside the Headmaster’s room but he himself did not sleep in the Headmaster’s room on that night. As he did not sleep in the Headmaster’s room, he did not know what happened that night and, he also did not know what the Headmaster had done to the prosecutrix. DW-4 admitted that their Headmaster was a little bit drunk on the night of the incident and that he was not deposing falsely before the Court.
As he did not sleep in the Headmaster’s room, he did not know what happened that night and, he also did not know what the Headmaster had done to the prosecutrix. DW-4 admitted that their Headmaster was a little bit drunk on the night of the incident and that he was not deposing falsely before the Court. [27.] From the evidence led by the prosecution, it may be seen that the prosecutrix who was examined as PW-2 in her examination-in-chief stated that during the study camp in the month of January, 2022, particularly on the night of 14.01.2022 at around 10:00 PM, after their study period was over, their Headmaster (the accused) along with one of her friends (PW-6) went out of the school to get some snacks while they were preparing their bed to sleep. She along with two other girls and three boys slept in the office of the Headmaster and the Headmaster also slept in the same room. The Headmaster and PW-6 came back at around 11 PM and after having a short chat, they prepared to sleep and the Headmaster slept in between herself and PW-6. She was of the impression that the Headmaster would leave after a few minutes but instead he asked her to get a pillow and he shared her blanket. As she was coughing now and then, he gave her some medicine and by which time, most of her friends were asleep already. After a few a minutes, he hugged her, caressed her, kissed her lips and touched her breast. He then removed his pants and also forcefully removed her pants and raped her. At that time, as one of her friend spoke out aloud, the Headmaster stopped his action. Since she respected the Headmaster very much, she was afraid to scream or shout out aloud. PW-6, who is the classmate of the prosecutrix and who had gone out with the Headmaster to fetch some snacks on the night of 14.01.2022 after the study period was over also narrated the same story. Additionally, she stated that after the Headmaster slept between herself and the prosecutrix, she felt the Headmaster hug her but she was able to turn over against him. Although he tried his best to hug her again but she was able to avoid him and she moved away from his side.
Additionally, she stated that after the Headmaster slept between herself and the prosecutrix, she felt the Headmaster hug her but she was able to turn over against him. Although he tried his best to hug her again but she was able to avoid him and she moved away from his side. He thereafter turned towards the prosecutrix and then she fell asleep. On the next morning, the prosecutrix told her that the Headmaster had assaulted her and she shared her story of what their Headmaster had done to her. The prosecutrix stated that she had not only been assaulted but she was destroyed by the Headmaster. [28.] It may further be seen that according to the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief, the accused person was drinking Soju on the night of the incident since he had showed the students the green bottle of Soju. Likewise, PW-6 in her examination-in-chief stated that when she had gone out with the accused to get some snacks on the night of 14.01.2022, the accused drank Soju. PW-7 who is also one of the students who slept in the room of the Headmaster on the night of 14.01.2022 in her examination-in-chief stated that PW-6 told her that when they had gone out to get some snacks, the accused drank some liquor. She also stated that when she awoke at 4:00 AM in the morning after the night of the incident, she saw the accused sleeping between the prosecutrix and PW-6 and she went back to sleep. Thereafter, when she woke up, she saw the prosecutrix weeping/crying inside the Class-X room besides Zualtei. According to PW-7, the prosecutrix also informed her that their Headmaster had molested her the night before and she did not sleep properly. [29.] PW-3 and PW-4 were seizure witnesses who witnessed the seizure of the Birth Certificate of the prosecutrix but the Birth Certificate of the prosecutrix has not been exhibited during the trial. However, the mother of the prosecutrix in her deposition as PW-1 stated that the prosecutrix was her daughter and she was a minor of 17 years of age. PW-1 was examined on 03.08.2022. PW-2 who is the prosecutrix was also examined before the Court on 03.08.2022 wherein, she was stated to be 18 years of age.
However, the mother of the prosecutrix in her deposition as PW-1 stated that the prosecutrix was her daughter and she was a minor of 17 years of age. PW-1 was examined on 03.08.2022. PW-2 who is the prosecutrix was also examined before the Court on 03.08.2022 wherein, she was stated to be 18 years of age. [30.] The Birth Certificate of the prosecutrix issued by the Department of Economics & Statistics under the signature of the issuing authority dated 25.01.2004 is a part of the paperbook. The same is said to have been exhibited as Exhibit P-V under the signature of the Trial Judge. The Trial Judge has also entered a remark that the document was inspected and compared with the original and found to be correct. The signature of the Trial Judge is dated 03.08.2022. It was at this state that the informant (PW-1) and the prosecutrix (PW-2) were examined before the Trial Court by the prosecution. In the impugned Judgment & Order dated 21.11.2023, the finding of the learned Trial Court with regard to the age of the prosecutrix is as follows:- “ (ii) Whether the victim is a minor/child? With regard to the age of the prosecutrix, in the FIR it was mentioned that age is 17 years. The case I.O seized the original copy of birth certificate of the prosecutrix in presence of two witnesses and exhibited the same as exhibit P-IV and exhibit P-IV(a) is her signature. The original copy of the birth certificate was returned to the rightful owner and photocopy of it was placed on record and exhibited as material exhibit P-V. PW-3 & PW-4 are seizure witnesses in respect of seizure of the birth certificate of the prosecutrix. In their presence, the I.O seized the birth certificate. As per the birth certificate, it was recorded that the prosecutrix was born on 23.01.2004. The incident took place on the early morning of 15.01.2022. Then the age of the prosecutrix was 17 (seventeen) years, 10(ten) months and 15 (fifteen) days old at the time of the incident. She has not attained the age of 18 years. During the course of trial, the defence never disputed over the age of the prosecutrix.
The incident took place on the early morning of 15.01.2022. Then the age of the prosecutrix was 17 (seventeen) years, 10(ten) months and 15 (fifteen) days old at the time of the incident. She has not attained the age of 18 years. During the course of trial, the defence never disputed over the age of the prosecutrix. The birth certificate in respect of the prosecutrix is admissible and most reliable in evidence as it is a document of certificate issued by the Economics & Statistics Department, Government of Mizoram through the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Kawnpui, under Thingdawl RD. Block, Kolasib District vide registration No. 25/2004 dated 25.01.2004. The Economics & Statistics Department is the concerned authority in Mizoram to issue such certificate under Section 12/17 of the Registration of Births and Death Act, 1969. Therefore, this Court finds it safe to conclude that the victim is a minor of 17 (seventeen) years, 10(ten) months and 15 (fifteen)days old at the time of the incident.” [31.] Apart from the above finding made by the learned Trial Court with regard to the age of the prosecutrix, no dispute has been raised by the defence at any stage that the prosecutrix was not a minor at the time of the commission of the alleged offence but in fact was a major. An objection in this regard has now only been made at the appellate stage. Having regard to the findings recorded, it may be seen that it was only due to inadvertence that the same was not exhibited through any of the prosecution witnesses. That the Birth Certificate being issued by the competent authority and a public document need not be put to a close scrutiny unless the same is objected to by the defence during the trial. Therefore, we are inclined to accept that the prosecutrix admittedly was a minor at the time of the incident. [32.] The Medical Officer, who examined the prosecutrix after the incident that was said to have happened on the night of 14.01.2022 or in the early hours of 15.01.2022 as PW-11 found the hymen of the prosecutrix to be torn/ruptured upon conducting medical examination. He also found some signs of suggestive vaginal intercourse. The Medical Report however is with a remark that final opinion may be formulated after receiving the report from the FSL.
He also found some signs of suggestive vaginal intercourse. The Medical Report however is with a remark that final opinion may be formulated after receiving the report from the FSL. Admittedly, no FSL report was received although vaginal smear was collected. However, having regard to the manner in which the act of sexual intercourse was said to have been committed by the accused upon the prosecutrix and the fact that the prosecutrix was having her menstruation at the relevant time, coupled with the finding of the doctor (PW-11) opining that there were signs of suggestive vaginal intercourse, the version of the prosecutrix is found to be acceptable and reliable. Moreover, her version is also duly corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses importantly, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10. [33.] A projection has been made by the defence that there was some sort of enmity between the family of the prosecutrix and the accused person. However, none of the defence witnesses including DW-3 and DW-4 were present in the room of the Headmaster where three boys and three girls along with the Headmaster had slept on the night of 14.01.2022. All that was stated by them is that the accused person was not the type of person to commit the alleged crime and that it was their hypothetical assumption that the family of the prosecutrix may have accused the accused person to take revenge for what had happened during the Covid-19 times. It may be stated herein that if such enmity had existed, the question of the family of the prosecutrix sending the prosecutrix to study in the school where the accused person was the Headmaster and especially to allow her to attend the study camp by spending the night in the school would only be remote. On the other hand, not only did the prosecutrix attend the study camp but also slept in the room of the Headmaster along with other students and the Headmaster slept between her and the PW-6, her classmate. The Headmaster also gave her medicine when she was coughnig on the night of the incident. This also goes to show that the accused did not lose all his senses on the night of the incident despite having had soju. We therefore find the projection made about the enmity between the families to be only improbable under the given facts and circumstances of the case.
This also goes to show that the accused did not lose all his senses on the night of the incident despite having had soju. We therefore find the projection made about the enmity between the families to be only improbable under the given facts and circumstances of the case. [34.] Reliance has been placed upon the case of Vijay Vs. Union of India (supra) by the learned counsel for the appellant in respect of the standards required to prove a document as per the Evidence Act in connection with the age of the prosecutrix. However, the learned Trial Court inspected and compared the Birth Certificate with the original and found the same to be correct. In the absence of any disputes raised in this regard, the Birth Certificate cannot be ignored but will have to be accepted. As for the case of Lalfakzuala Hrahsel (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the same in our considered view may not be applicable to the present case in view of our acceptance to the finding that the prosecutrix was underaged at the time of the incident as per the Birth Certificate. [35.] Thus, upon consideration of the matter in its entirety, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned Judgment & Order and accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. Registry to send back the LCR immediately.