Back
2020 Supreme(Gau) 527
GAUHATI HIGH COURT (AIZAWL BENCH)
Michael Zothankhuma, Nelson Sailo, JJ.
Lalventhanga - Appellant
Versus
State Of Mizoram - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2018
Decided On : 20-04-2020
Johny L Tochhawng, Advocate, C. Zoramchhana, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the victim's statement and corroborating witnesses, can be sufficient to establish guilt without the need for corroboration, and the defense of intoxication may not be a valid defense under Section 85 IPC.
Headnote:
POCSO - Sexual Assault - Section 6 of the POCSO Act - [Section 6]
Fact of the Case:
An appeal was filed against the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a minor girl. The appellant was alleged to have committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the prosecutrix. The evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses, including the victim's statement, corroborated the assault.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence clearly pointed to the appellant's commission of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The court rejected the appellant's defense of intoxication and lack of opportunity to adduce defense evidence. The court also modified the sentence to 15 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000.
Issues: The issues included the appellant's alleged lack of opportunity to present defense evidence, the interpretation of Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and the consideration of the appellant's intoxication as a defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the victim's statement and corroborating witnesses, was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt. The court also rejected the appellant's defense of intoxication and lack of opportunity to present defense evidence.
Final Decision: The conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was upheld, and the sentence was modified to 15 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000.
JUDGMENT
Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant alongwith Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned Judgment & Order dated 08.10.2018 passed by the Special Court, POCSO, Champhai in Sessions Case No. 70/2016, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo 18 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default S.I. for 2 months, vide sentence passed on 11.10.2018.
3. The brief facts of the case is that an FIR was lodged by one Sh. Ramthanpuia, Resident of Biate, Biakin Veng, with the Khawzawl Police Station on 28.02.2015, on the ground that Sh. Ramthanpuia''s minor daughter, namely "X", age 5 years, had been sexually assaulted by the appellant on 26.02.2015, between 2 to 3 pm. On the basis of the FIR lodged by the said Sh. Ramthanpuia, Khawzawl P.S. Case No. 12/2015 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was registered against the appellant.
4. Investigation was started by the police and the minor victim girl was also sent to the Medical Officer for medical examination on 28.02.2015. The Medical Officer made a report that there was no sign of injury on the body of the victim, but the hymen was torn/ruptured. After examining the complainant, other witnesses, the victim and after interrogation of the appellant, the case I.O. found a prima facie case under Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the appellant. Accordingly, charge sheet was submitted by the case I.O. on 18.04.2016. After the case was committed to the Special Court, POCSO Act, charge was framed against the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act on 28.06.2016.
5. During the trial before the learned Trial Court, 9 out of the 11 prosecution witnesses were examined. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act by the Trial Court on 08.10.2018 and sentence hearing was held on 11.10.2018. The appellant was thereafter sentenced to undergo R.I. for 18 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default S.I. for 2 months.
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment & Sentence Order passed on 08.10.2018 and 11.10.2018, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
7. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the impugned Judgment & Order dated 08.10.2018 and the Sentence Order dated 11.10.2018 should be set aside, inasmuch as, no opportunity had been given to the appellant to adduce defence evidence by the Trial Court, even at the time of recording of the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He also submits that though the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the learned Trial Court did not make any discussion with regard to Section 6 of the POCSO Act in the impugned Judgment & Order. He submits that the Trial Court only discussed Section 9 of the POCSO Act. The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that the FSL report and the cross examination of the Doctor (PW-8) does not prove that the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime. The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that on a total reading of the evidence on record, the appellant, could at best, have been convicted under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and not under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, by altering the charge from Section 6 to Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
8. Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no infirmity with the impugned Judgment & Order passed by the learned Trial Court. He submits that the facts as narrated by the witnesses clearly prove that the appellant is the perpetrator of the crime against the victim girl. He also submits that the requirements for the Court to convict a person under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, as can be seen from the evidence, are present and the same are in consonance with Section 3 & 5 of the POCSO A
