H. Baruah, J.

1. In challenge is the judgment and order dated 11.8.2006 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (J), Aizawl in Criminal TR No. 2640/04 arising out of Saitual PS Case No. 64/04, whereby accused/appellant was convicted under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

2. After conviction and passing of sentence as aforesaid by the learned trial Court for the purpose of confirming the conviction and sentence, the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Aizawl made a reference to the High Court complying the provisions of Rule 9 of the Regulation of the Procedure of Officers Appointed to the Administration of Justice in the Lushai Hills, 1937 and accordingly criminal reference No. 7/06 was registered. Subsequently, the accused/appellant being in jail serving out the sentence so awarded also preferred an appeal from jail which received registration as Criminal Appeal No. 4/08(J).

3. Since both the criminal appeal and the reference have arisen from a common judgment, we propose to dispose of both the reference and the appeal by this common judgment and order.

4. Mr. M.M. Ali, learned Counsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court since appellant was not represented by any other counsel.

5. For the purpose of deciding the merit of this appeal as well as the reference, it would be appropriate for us, at the very outset to make a survey of the facts briefly which lead to the conviction of the appellant.

6. The appellant, herein, is the father of the victim girl (PW 2) aged about 7 years at the relevant point of time. First informant (PW 1) is the mother of the victim as well as the ex- wife of the accused/appellant. On 24.12.2004, PW 1, the mother of the victim girl set the criminal law in motion by filing an FIR (Ext. P 1) with the SHO of Saitual police station alleging inter-alia that her husband, accused/appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her daughter (PW 20 on several occasions on and from 15.10.2004. Having been filed such information with the police, a case, being Saitual PS Case No. 64/04 was registered under Section 376(2)(f) IPC. Investigation commenced. During the investigation, the victim girl (PW 2) was produced before the Medical Officer (PW 6) by her mother (PW 1) for her medical examination who accordingly conducted the examination and submitted report (Ext. P II).

7. In course of the investigation the mother (PW 1) and the victim girl (PW 2) were produced for recording their statement under Section 164, Cr PC. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer laid chargesheet under Section 376(2)(f) IPC for trial of the accused/appellant.

8. The learned trial Court after scrutiny of the materials submitted under Section 173 Cr PC framed charge against the accused/appellant under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC. Accused/appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge so framed and claimed to be tried.

9. During the trial, prosecution to bring home the charge, altogether examined 6 (six) witnesses including the Doctor (PW 6) and the Investigation Officer (PW 7). Defence also examined 3 (three) witnesses including the appellant in support of defence. The learned trial Court after recording the statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313, Cr PC by the judgment and order convicted the accused/appellant as above. The appellant being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order of conviction has preferred the jail appeal challenging its legality and correctness.

10. We have heard Mr. M.M. Ali, learned Amicus Curiae and Ms. Helen Dawngliani, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent.

11. Amongst all the prosecution witnesses, to us, evidence of PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 6 are most vital and important for the purpose of ascertaining the legality and correctness of the conviction and sentence so awarded by the learned tria