1. This criminal appeal has been registered on the basis of an application dated 24.2.2012 made by the convict to the Registry of this court through the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Aizawl. Appeal was admitted on 9.3.2012. By a subsequent order dated 8.6.2012, Mr. A.R. Malhotra, a learned counsel of this court was appointed as the amicus curiae.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.1.2010 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge-II, Aizawl in Crl. Trl. No. 1517 2009 convicting the appellant under section 376(1) IPC and the order dated 3.2.2010 sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years with fine of Rs. 5,000, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, detention already undergone to be set off.

3. Prosecution case in brief is that one Lalbiakdika had lodged a first information dated 9.08.2008 before the Officer-in-Charge, Kolasib Police Station alleging that his minor daughter Lalnunfeli, aged about 14 years, was subjected to rape by the appellant on two occasions, i.e., on 22.5.2008 and 7.7.2008. The said information was treated as FIR and on the basis of the same, Kolasib P.S. Case No. 77/2008 under section 376(1), IPC was registered. Police investigated the case and in the course of investigation, appellant was irrested. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused under the aforesaid section. Charge under the aforesaid section was framed on 20.1.2009.

4. To prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses whereas no witness was produced by the defence though statement of the appellant under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('Cr.PC') was recorded. The defence plea was that of denial.

5. After perusing the evidence adduced and after hearing the learned counsels for both the sides, learned trial judge by the judgment dated 22.1.2010 held that the guilt of the appellant was proved beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted him under section 376(1), IPC. Again after hearing both the sides, the learned trial judge by order dated 3.2.2010 sentenced the appellant for the period as indicated above.

6. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant in the manner indicated above assailing his conviction and sentence.

7. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned amicus curiae for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram.

8. Learned amicus curiae fairly submits that on the basis of the evidence on record it would be difficult to dislodge the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial judge. He, however, contends that the trial was vitiated on three counts which strikes at the root of the trial itself. According to him, no charge was read over to the accused and since he was not confronted with the charge giving him the opportunity either to admit the charge or to contest the same, there was no charge framed against the appellant in the eye of law. Therefore, the trial proceeded without any charge being framed against the accused. His next point is that the statement of the accused under section 313, Cr.PC was recorded in a very perfunctory manner and, therefore, no proper explanation of the accused could be brought out in the course of the said exercise, which has also cast a shadow of doubt over the trial proceeding. He also contends that at the end of recording of evidence from the prosecution side, accused was not called upon to enter his defence and to adduce any evidence in his support. Thus, there was violation of section 233 of the Cr.PC. He submits that the cumulative effect of the aforesaid procedural irregularities would strike at the very foundation of the criminal trial and, therefore, the impugned conviction and sentence should be set aside and quashed. Learned amicus curiae, in support of his submissions, has referred to and relied upon the following judgments :

Lal Behari Das and Ors. v. State of Tripura, 1998

Click Here to Read the rest of this document