TIALKHAMA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal from jail is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2010 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Lunglei in Crl. Tr.No. 223/2009 convicting the accused appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default further imprisonment of 20 days.

(2.) THE accused appellant is aged about 80 years while the victim, at the relevant point of time, was about 5 years old.

(3.) IN her evidence, PW 1 stated that she had suspicions that the accused had committed sexual offence against her grand-daughter and therefore, when her grand-daughter had requested her to let her play in front of his residence, reluctantly, she allowed her grand-daughter to play as the house of the accused, her neighbour, was locked. At that particular point, her grand-daughter was in the company of her cousin who was about 2 years old. While making tea, not seeing the grand-daughter in the field, she enquired about the whereabouts from her cousin and hearing her shouts, her grand-daughter came out weeping. She found that her pant covering her pubic region was wet and she suspected that the accused had committed rape on her. Her attempt to undress the child proved futile and therefore, she called her sister and together they undressed the girl and found that there were bruises in her vulva and it was reddened. It is also in her evidence that before going to the hospital for medical check up of her grand-daughter, she had gone to the residence of the accused and had warned him that she would be approaching the authorities. The doctor, however, asked her to report the matter to the police and submit an FIR and therefore, she had gone to the police station and, on her dictation, FIR was recorded. IN the FIR she had put her signature. It also came out in her evidence that though in the year 2008 also she had suspected the accused of committing sexual intercourse with her grand-daughter, yet as the accused was too old besides being a neighbour, she was hesitant to take action against him in absence of conclusive proof against him. However, it is also in her evidence that she had warned him not to engage in any sexual intercourse against her grand-daughter. She had introduced in her evidence, the FIR as E- P-1 and the birth certificate as M.E.P-1. She was also a signatory in the seizure memo exhibited as Ex- P-II. IN her cross-examination she had indicated the date of birth of her grand-daughter as 12.1.2004 and had reiterated her strong suspicion against the accused of committing sexual intercourse with her grand-daughter. Her cross-examination reveals that behaviour of her grand daughter is normal. She also denied the suggestion that she had deposed falsely in court.