R LALTHANZAUVA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28 -6 -2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lunglei Judicial District, Lunglei convicting the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 500/ - and, in default thereof, to suffer a simple imprisonment for 15 days.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 26 -2 -2012 at about 12.15 PM, an ejahar was lodged by Pi Vanlalveni of Lungleng Veng, Hnahthial with the Officer -in -Charge of Hnahthial Police Station stating that on 26 -2 -2012 at 10.00 AM, when her daughter, aged 6 years, was playing with her friends in front of BCM Church Kanan Veng, Hnahthial, the appellant went to her, asked her to accompany him by promising to buy something for her and then took her to his house and raped her. The Hnahthial Police Station thereupon registered Hnahthial P.S. Case No. 5/2012 U/s 376(2)(f) IPC and investigated into the case. In the course of investigation, the IO of the case visited the place of occurrence (PO) and drew the sketch map of the PO and arrested the appellant and brought him to custody. The underpant of the appellant, the birth certificate of the victim and Rs. 10/ - denomination were seized by the IO in the presence of the witnesses, while the appellant and the victim were forwarded to the CHC, Hnahthial for medical examination, and their statements were also recorded. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge -sheeted U/s 376(2)(f) IPC and sent up for trial. The trial court, having found a prima facie case, framed the charge against the appellant U/s 376(2)(f) IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to prove the charge against the appellant. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, the appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC.

(3.) I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record. In my judgment, the appellant was rightly convicted by the trial court. I will straightaway refer to the statement of the prosecutrix/victim. She was examined as PW2 and deposed that on the day of the incident, which was a Sunday, she was attending the Church service along with her friends. At that time, the appellant invited her and her friends to go out of the Church, and when they reached a certain distance from the Church, which was no longer visible, he asked her friends to return home and invited the victim to come to his residence by offering her some money. As they entered his residence, continued the victim, there was no other person. The appellant then kissed her on her lips and then took off his shirt and started to play her private part. He then inserted his male organ on her private part and pressed it. According to victim, she felt pain at this, but it was not bleeding. He then gave Rs. 10/ - which she, in turn, gave it to her mother. The appellant instructed her not to tell her parents as otherwise, they would beat her. She then went home crying and on the way home, she met Hlutei (Smt. H. Biakhlupuii), who was examined as PW3, who asked her as what happened to her. To which, she replied that the appellant raped her. The cross -examination of the prosecutrix does not bring out anything to discredit her testimony: in fact, the cross -examination was merely suggestions, which were denied by the victim and such suggestion and denial are hardly sufficient to elicit the truth or demolish her testimony.