LALBIAKKIMI Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (J) Lunglei District, Lunglei in Lunglei PS Case No. 157/97 registered under Sections 376(l)/323 IPC. By the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused convict has been convicted under section 376(1), IPC sentencing him to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of Rs. 500/- in default RI for 1 month. The accused convict has further been convicted under Section 323 IPC with the sentence of SI for 3 months. The charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act has been held to be not proved.

(2.) The criminal proceeding against the accused convict was set on motion pursuant to the FIR lodged by the alleged victim woman on 15.9.97 stating that on 12.9.97 around 3.30 PM the accused convict committed rape on her twice at a place called Chithar area at gunpoint. After investigation etc. charge sheet was submitted under Section2 376 (i)/323 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution examined 4 witnesses including the alleged victim woman. The accused convict was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and in his statement he denied the commission of the offence by him.

(3.) Learned Additional District Magistrate (J), 011 the basis of the materials and evidences on record passed the impugned judgment of conviction sentencing the accused convict to undergo the aforesaid sentence. Hence this appeal filed by the accused convict urging various grounds. Mr. G. Raju, learned counsel appearing for the accused convict took me through the evidences on record and the grounds urged in the appeal. He also submitted that even if the incident is stated to be true, the victim woman was a wiling party and thus, there was no ingredients of Section 376 IPC. Referring to the date of conclusion of hearing of the case with the submissions of written argument on 19.9.2001 and 26.11.2001 and the date of delivery of the judgment on 14.7.2005 i.e. nearly after 4 years of conclusion of hearing, Mr. G. Raju, learned counsel for th accused convict submitted that such inordinate delay in delivering the judgment without any reasonable cause was fatal to the prosecution case and that there ought to have been fresh hearing of the matter.