LALRAMCHHANA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal appeal filed against the Judgment convicting the appellant dtd. 7/9/2022 as well as the sentencing order dtd. 12/9/2022 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Champhai Judicial District, Mizoram by which the appellant was convicted under Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSO Act') and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 (ten) years with a fine of Rs.20,000.00( Rupees twenty thousand) and in default of the said fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for another period of 2 (two) months.

(2.) The prosecution case as is revealed from the First Information Report (FIR) dtd. 7/9/2016 is that the victim who was one of the wards in the Special Home and who was a student in Vengthlang Middle School, was lured with money by the appellant and that on two instances i.e. on 22/7/2016 and 29/7/2016, she was subjected to sexual abuse at a vacant house near the school during the lunch break by the appellant. On receipt of the said FIR, the police registered the case as CPI-PS Case No. 135 of 2016 and registered under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act and investigated the case. On completion of the investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet vide charge-sheet No. 1 of 2017 on 13/10/2016 against the appellant under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act. Thereafter, on completion of the necessary requirements under the law, the learned Special Court (POCSO Act), Aizawl Judicial District framed charge against the appellant under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act, on 11/4/2017. Thereafter, the trial proceeded and the accused was examined under Sec. 313 of the Cr.PC and the learned Trial Court after completion of the trial, convicted the appellant as mentioned above. It is this judgment and order passed by the Special Court (POCSO Act), Champhai, which is put to challenge by the appellant before this Court.

(3.) The most clinching evidence in the instant case is the evidence of the victim who is arrayed as PW-10. She stated before the Trial Court that she was admitted to the Shelter Home due to an unfortunate incident happened to her on the previous year and that after her admission in the Shelter Home, she was enrolled in the Champhai Middle School and at the time of occurrence, she was studying in Class-VII. She stated that she saw the appellant for the first time when she was going back from her school to her home but she did not speak to him and that subsequently, one day, when she and her friends were sitting together at the waiting shed near the school, the appellant came to her and invited her to have physical relationship with him at which she did not reply anything. She further stated that one day later, she went to a shop nearby to purchase some items and at that juncture, the appellant who was little away waived at her and that she went near him, who took her to an empty house below the school. She then stated that in the said empty house, the appellant made her lie down on the bed and started molesting her and by removing her clothes he mounted on her and had physical relationship with her. She also stated that since the appellant over-powered her, she did not had the strength to resist him from doing the act and that the act was for a short duration and that further she was given Rs.20.00 by the appellant. She stated that the incident took place on 22/7/2016. The victim thereafter, stated that again on 29/7/2016 during the lunch break, she and the appellant went to the outskirt of the Champhai town and that the accused again had sexual relationship with her. She stated that during this time she did not resist as the appellant used to give money to her. She then stated that the first occurrence came to the knowledge of the authorities of the Shelter Home. She also stated that after the second incident, the appellant promised her to pay money as and when she demands and that the appellant whom she addressed as maternal uncle, to hide the identity, gave her Rs.500.00 and that a clandestine sexual relationship had established between her and the appellant.