Back
2020 Supreme(Gau) 534
GAUHATI HIGH COURT (AIZAWL BENCH)
Michael Zothankhuma, Nelson Sailo, JJ.
Muni Rai - Appellant
Versus
State Of Mizoram - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2018
Decided On : 28-04-2020
Lalfakawma, Advocate, Linda L Fambawl, Advocate
The judgment emphasizes the need for sensitivity in handling rape cases involving mentally challenged individuals and highlights the importance of examining crucial witnesses to corroborate evidence.
Headnote:
Rape - Criminal Law - IPC Section 376(2)(l) - The judgment discusses the evidence and contradictions in the case, highlighting the absence of corroboration and the importance of examining crucial witnesses. The court emphasizes the need for sensitivity in handling rape cases involving mentally challenged individuals and orders the case to be remanded for further examination of a vital witness.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 376(2)(l) IPC for raping a mentally and physically challenged woman. The appeal challenged the conviction based on contradictions in the evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies in the evidence and emphasized the need for sensitivity in handling cases involving mentally challenged individuals. It ordered the case to be remanded for further examination of a crucial witness.
Issues: Inconsistencies in evidence, lack of corroboration, importance of examining crucial witnesses, handling of cases involving mentally challenged individuals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for sensitivity in handling rape cases involving mentally challenged individuals and highlighted the importance of examining crucial witnesses to corroborate evidence.
Final Decision: The case is remanded back to the Trial Court for examining a crucial witness and further adjudication. The conviction and sentence are set aside.
JUDGMENT
Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned Amicus Curiae and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
2. This is an appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Lunglei in Criminal Trial No. 486/2014 under Lawngtlai P.S Case No. 69/2014, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 (2) (l) IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 (ten) years 6 (six) months rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 70,000/-, in default, S.I for 6 (six) months vide order dated 06.04.2017.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 27.11.2014, one C. Sangkila of Lawngtlai lodged an FIR at Lawngtlai Police Station, to the effect that on 27.11.2014, between 11:00 AM and 12:00 noon, his mentally and physically challenged daughter, aged 29 years, was raped by an unknown person in their house. On the basis of the FIR, Lawngtlai P.S Case No. 69/2014 dated 27.11.2014 under Section 376 (2)(l) IPC was registered on 27.11.2014. The prosecutrix was produced before a Medical Officer on 27.11.2014 at around 4:55 PM. After investigation was concluded, the I.O filed a charge-sheet.
4. Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 376 (2)(l) IPC on 10.04.2015 and trial was initiated. 7 (seven) prosecution witnesses were examined. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. The learned Trial Court thereafter convicted the appellant under Section 376(2)(l) IPC vide Judgment & Order dated 28.03.2017 passed in Criminal Trial No. 486/2014 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years 6 (six) months with a fine of Rs. 70,000/-, in default, S.I for 6 (six) months, vide order dated 06.04.2017. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
5. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the impugned judgment & order has to be set aside in view of the fact that the evidence adduced does not prove that the appellant is guilty of the crime. He submits that the evidence given by PW-1 and PW-3 are in contradiction to one another, with respect to the manner in which the alleged incident of rape came to light. He also submits that the PW-3 in her evidence had stated that the prosecutrix had told her that the appellant had raped her and that the prosecutrix had also stated that her underpant had blood stains due to the said rape. However, there was no mention of any blood stain by any other witnesses including the prosecutrix during the evidence stage. Further, it was not proved as to whose blood had stained the underpants of the prosecutrix.
6. The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that the prosecutrix had in her evidence stated that the appellant, before locking the door of her house in which the appellant had raped her, asked the younger sister of the prosecutrix, i.e., Rinrini to go outside. The prosecutrix also stated that while the appellant and the prosecutrix were inside the house, Rinrini knocked on the door, but the appellant told Rinrini that she could not enter the house. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that while the evidence of Rinrini was vital to prove whether the appellant was with the prosecutrix inside the house at the relevant time, the said Rinrini was never made a witness by the Police in the rape case.
7. The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that there was no injury marks on the appellant except for an abrasion near the urethral opening and that the hymen was absent. He also submits that there was no eye witness to prove that the appellant and the prosecutrix had entered the house of the prosecutrix or that the appellant had left the house of the prosecutrix. He accordingly submits that in view of the above facts and evidence, there was no proof of the appellant having committed the act of rape against the prosecutrix. He thus prays for setting aside and quashing the impugned judgment & order.
8. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submit
