(1.) In this criminal appeal, this Court is called upon to examine the legality of the judgment dated 7.10.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lunglei Judicial District, Lunglei in Crl. Trl. No. 85/2012 convicting the appellant under Section 376(1) IPC and sentencing him to undergo a rigorous imprisonment(RI) of 5 years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default thereof, to undergo a simple imprisonment(SI) of 1 month.
(2.) The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is that on 4.4.2012, an FIR was lodged by one Margaret Lalramsiami of Chanmari Kanaan Veng, Lawngtlai stating that on the night of 3.4.2012 between 11:00 PM and 12:00 midnight, Cathy Lalramdinpuii (the victim) was taken out by one Lalmalsawma of Chanmari Kanaan Veng at College Hill, and was suspected to have been raped by him. Incidentally, the victim is deaf and dumb. On the basis of the FIR so lodged, Lawngtlai PS Case No. 33/2012 was registered under Section 376(1) IPC and was investigated into by the Lawngtlai Police Station. In the course of investigation, the complainant as well as the victim was examined and their statements recorded. The victim was forwarded to the District Hospital, Lawngtlai for medical examination. The Medical Officer found that the hymen of the victim was torn in the posterior part, but no external injury was found on her body. He also did not find any bruise on her genital part. After investigation of the case, the appellant was arrested and interrogated by the Investigating Officer.
(3.) On examination of the evidence of the victim who tendered her evidence by signs, which were interpreted by the interpreter, who was also examined as PW6, there appears to be major defects in the manner in which the victim was examined by the trial Court. This is the point raised by Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the appellant, who argues that her evidence was not videographed: this is in contravention of the proviso to Section 119 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and such evidence is, therefore, is not admissible in evidence. The learned counsel further argues that the interpreter who was also examined as PW6 was not even administered oath at the time of interpreting the statement of the prosecutrix which is in contravention of the law laid down by the Apex Court. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the interpreter was also examined as prosecution witness No. 6 and was actively involved in the investigation of the case by assisting the police. As she is an interested witness, argues the learned counsel for the appellant, the evidence of PW6 lacks credibility and cannot be believed and should not be acted upon to convict the appellant as charged. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant strongly reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Rajasthan vs- Darshan Singh Alias Darshan Lal, 2012 5 SCC 789. The learned counsel for the appellant finally submits that once the evidence of prosecutrix is discarded and the evidence of PW6 who is an interested witness is considered with a pinch of salt, there is no absolutely evidence to bring home the charge against the appellant, who is, therefore, entitled to be acquitted.