LALMALSAWMA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legality of the judgment dated 7.10.2013 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Lunglei District in Crl. Trial No. 85 of 2012 convicting the appellant under Section 376(1) IPC and sentencing him to undergo five years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and, in default thereof, to suffer another one month of simple imprisonment, is called into question in this criminal appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 4.4.2012, a written F.I.R. was lodged by one Margaret Lalramsiami (25), d/o Kapchun -gnunga of L -IV, Chanmaari, Kanan Veng, Lawngtlai stating that on the night of 3.4.2012 between 11 PM and 12 mid -night, Ms. Cathy Laramdinpui, d/o Vanlalhruailiana of L -IV, who is living with her grand -mother at Chawngte Peng, was taken out by the appellant, who was suspected to have raped her. The victim is said to be abnormal as she is deaf and dumb. The Lawngtlai Police Station, therefore, registered the said police case and investigated into the case. In the course of investigation, the informant and the victim were examined by the police, who recorded their statements. The victim was sent for medical examination, which disclosed a sign of hymen tear and her hymen ruptured. The appellant was thereafter arrested and thoroughly examined. He is stated to have confessed to the crime. As per her Baptism Certificate, her age was only 15 years old though her age was wrongly written as 16 years in the FIR. After completion of the investigation, the police charge -sheeted the appellant U/s 376(1) IPC and sent him for trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lawngtlai.

(3.) On receipt of the charge -sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lawngtlai committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Lunglei Judicial District as the case is exclusively triable by the latter. The learned Sessions Judge, having found a prima facie case of rape, framed the charge against the appellant U/s 376(1) IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, the prosecution proceeded to examine six witnesses to bring home the charge against the appellant. Interestingly, the prosecutrix was not examined by the prosecution nor was any attempt made by the trial court to examine her in accordance with Section 119 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The appellant was, however, examined by the trial court under Section 313, CrPC, which contained both inculpatory and exculpatory statement. Anyway, at the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment convicted the appellant and sentenced him in the manner already noticed. Aggrieved by this, this appeal is now preferred by the appellant.