SH. LALTLUANGA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/appellant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the informant/respondent No. 2.

(2.) This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dtd. 29/9/2021 passed by the learned Fast Track Special Court, Rape and POCSO Act, 2012, arising out of FTSC(CPI) POCSO No. 15/2021 in SC No. 174/2017 in Crl. Trl. No. 1397/2017 dtd. 29/9/2021, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted under Sec. 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and sentenced thereof to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years with a fine of Rs.1000.00 and, in default, Simple Imprisonment for another one month.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the victim's father i.e. the informant/PW-1, on 1/9/2017, lodged an FIR alleging, inter alia, that his daughter, i.e., the victim/PW-2, who is about 15 years old, had been sexually molested on 20/8/2017 by her grandfather, i.e., the accused/appellant, who touched her private part and even performed pelvic thrusts while lying upon her. It is further alleged that the victim/PW-2 informed him that the accused/appellant had sexually assaulted her from the moment she was studying in Class V. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer, i.e., PW-6, took up the investigation and recorded the statement of the victim/PW-2 and the informant and other witnesses and also arrested the accused/appellant and interrogated him. After completion of the investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet by Charge-sheet No. 51/2017 dtd. 14/9/2017 against the accused/appellant under Sec. 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Thereafter, the Trial Court framed charges against the accused/appellant under Sec. 10 of the POCSO Act and, accordingly, commenced the trial. During the trial, the prosecution adduced a total number of six witnesses, including the victim/PW-2, wherein the accused/appellant, except for generally denying all the incriminating circumstances put before him under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, did not adduce any defence witnesses.