S. Serto, J.

This is a jail appeal of the appellant/accused against the judgment and order dated 2.12.2014 of the Sessions Judge, Lunglei district passed in Crl. RNo.630/2013 wherein he was convicted for the offence under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 2000/-(rupees two thousand) and in default of paying the same to a further imprisonment for a period of 1 month.

The brief facts and circumstances that led to the prosecution of the appellant/accused, his conviction and sentence under the Section of IPC mentioned above are as follows.

On 17.12.2013 one Mrs. Lalnunpari submitted a report to the Officer In-charge of Hnahthial P.S. stating as follows; That her daughters, one 13 years old and the other 10 years old having been sexually abused by their father Saimawngaon several occasions. That, she and her husband have been divorced 6 years ago and have been staying separately. That, in the month of June that year, her elder daughter came to live with her and while staying with her, she revealed to her in the night of 14.12.2013 that her father have had sexual intercourse with her many times. Following the discloser of her daughter, on 17.12.2013, they proceeded to the residence of her husband where they met the younger daughter who also disclosed that her father had molested her.

2. On receipt of the said complaint, an FIR was registered being Hnahthial PS Case No. 25/2013, dated 17.12.2013 (under Section 376(2)(i). During the investigation, the 2 girls were sent for medical examination and their statements were also recorded before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. After the investigation was over, charge sheet was submitted and the learned Sessions Judge on being satisfied, framed the charge under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC against the appellant/ accused on 12.5.2014. The appellant/accused faced the trial, but since he could not afford to hire the service of a lawyer he was provided a lawyer on the state's expense. During the trial, in support of the prosecution case, 6 PWs including the Investigating Officer of the case and the doctor who examined the 2 prosecutrix were examined.

3. After hearing the parties and examining the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Sessions Judge was satisfied that the appellant/accused was guilty of having committed the offence under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC, accordingly she convicted him and sentenced him as stated above.

4. Being not satisfied with the judgment and sentence the appellant/accused has submitted a jail appeal. The grounds of appeal as given in the petition are as follows:

i. That the absence of hymen in the private part of the prosecutrix does not necessarily proved that he had committed rape on his daughter i.e. the prosecutrix.

ii. That as per the statement of the prosecutrix, bleeding on her private part was due to her monthly mens, therefore it is clear that it was not due to sexual abuse allegedly committed by him.

iii. That birth certificates produced before the police was a duplicate and the original was never produce before the Court.

iv. That since his wife was a drunkard and could not look after his children, he divorced her and was planning to get married again, therefore his wife i.e. the mother of the prosecutrix fabricated and concocted the charge against him in order to take revenge.

v. That there is no credible evidence to convict him on the offence charged against him.

5. In support of the appeal, the learned amicus-curiae Mr. C Lalfakzuala submitted that the appellant was not given a chance to give evidence after the prosecution had produced their witnesses. This is in violation of the right to defence. The learned counsel also submitted that the accused was convicted on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix which is not reliable. The learned amicus-curiae further submitted that the appellant/accused was not examined medically to see if he was able to perform sexual act at that