RAMCHHANTHANGA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R. Lalhmingmawia, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Lalsawirema, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mizoram.

(2.) THIS jail appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.3.2012 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge -IV, Aizawl judicial district, Aizawl in S.R. No. 97/10 in Criminal Trial No. 37/2010 under Section 376(1), IPC whereby the accused Ramchhanthanga was convicted under S. 376(1), ICP and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 (seven) years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/ -, in default to undergo S.I. for a period of 30 (thirty) days.

(3.) PW 1 is the father of the victim and also the informant. In his examination -in -chief, he stated that on 14.2.2010 at around 4.30 p.m. he came to know from his neighbours that his daughter (victim) was lying intoxicated at Government Primary School -IV unconscious and the accused had raped her. He was shocked by the news and felt pain and angry and approached the school and on his way he also heard the words of the accused that he had already slept with the victim. He entered the house of Bawichhunga where the victim was sleeping in the chair unconscious. She had been clothed by her friend and he carried her behind him and she regained her consciousness at around 11 p.m. The accused in spite of asking for forgiveness, was angry and claimed himself of supporting her. He was very angry and felt pain for the wrongful act of the accused and he submitted FIR at Khawhai P.S. He identified Exhibit P -1 as the complaint submitted by him and Exhibit P -1(A) as his signature. In his cross -examination, he stated that he had not seen the act of having sexual intercourse with the victim. There are some other houses near the school and there was no cry from the alleged victim and there were so many people around the place of occurrence looking at the incident as an inviting sight. He also stated that what he knew was derived from some other persons. In re -examination by the prosecution he stated that, as far as he knew, there were no persons who were peeping at the act and the alleged victim was unconscious after taking 1 (one) glass of country made liquor and that what is recorded in the cross -examination are partly false.