LALTHANGFELA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

(2.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the Judgment and Order dtd. 16/12/2020 passed by the learned Fast Track Court, Kolasib District, Kolasib in Sessions Case No. (K) 25/2017 arising out of Criminal Trial No. 339/2017 by which the appellant was convicted under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 and in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 month.

(3.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 20/6/2017 at around 4:30 p.m, a written FIR was lodged by Andrew Lalpekhlua s/o Lalthansanga (L) of Kolasib to the effect that during the year 2012, his youngest sisters (victim) was sexually assaulted by her stepfather and that he continued to have sexual intercourse with her since then for almost every day and against her will. As a result, Kolasib P.S Case No. 97/2017 dtd. 20/6/2017 under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act was registered and the case investigated into. Upon completion of the investigation, the investigating authority on finding a prima facie case under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act to be well established against the appellant, submitted the charge sheet. Following the submission of the charge sheet, charge was framed against the appellant under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act and to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Accordingly, trial commenced against the appellant and during the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 6 prosecution witnesses. Upon completion of the prosecution's evidence, the appellant was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.PC to enable him to explain the evidence that was led against him. However, the appellant did not have anything to say or have witness in his defence. In other words, his reply to the questions put forth was basically that of denial. Consequently, the Trial Court upon hearing the parties passed the impugned Judgment and Order convicting and sentencing the appellant in a manner as already stated herein above.