IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AIZAWL BENCH)
Michael Zothankhuma, Nelson Sailo, JJ.
J. Lalruatsanga - Appellants
Vs.
State of Mizoram and Ors. - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 55 of 2019
Decided On : 16-09-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376-D, 376(1) and 342 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 118 - Rape – Appeal Against Conviction - Whether accused appellant and his friend committed rape upon prosecutrix – Held, Court is of considered view that appellant could not have been convicted under Section 376-D of IPC - This however does not mean that appellant can be absolved from charge of rape - Evidence on record clearly goes to show that while appellant committed rape upon prosecutrix, there is no proof that co-accused, i.e. juvenile Benjamin had committed rape upon victim, as no criminal proceedings have been initiated against Benjamin - In so far as his conviction and sentence under Section 342 IPC is concerned, Court is not inclined to interfere with same and same is upheld – Court however make it clear that both sentences under Section 376 (1) and Section 342 IPC shall run concurrently - Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Nelson Sailo, J.
1. Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, the learned counsel for the accused/appellant and Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram appearing for the State respondent. None appears for the respondent No. 2.
2. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.2019 passed by the Sessions Court, Lunglei Judicial District, Lunglei, Mizoram in Criminal Trial No. 233/2016, whereby he was convicted under Sections 376-D and 342 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). For his conviction under section 376-D IPC, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof, he was directed to undergo a further Simple Imprisonment for one month vide Order dated 11.11.2019. Further, the appellant for his conviction under Section 342 IPC was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof, he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences for conviction under Sections 376-D and 342 were directed to run concurrently.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that a written FIR was submitted before the Officer-in-Charge, Lawngtlai Police Station on 26.12.2015 by the respondent No. 2 stating that between 3.00 - 4.00 pm on that day, the appellant and Benjamina S/o. Thawmmawia, both from Rulkual village had taken her to Tawngtaina (prayer) View Point in a Pick-up vehicle against her will and after threatening her with a knife and forcing her to consume alcohol, they stripped and raped her. As a result, Lawngtlai PS Case No. 62/2015 dated 26.12.2015 under Sections 376-Dand 342 of the IPC was registered and investigations conducted.
4. Following the investigation, both the appellant and Benjamina were arrested. Since Benjamina was a juvenile, he was forwarded to the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to be placed in an observation home. After the investigation was completed, the Investigating Officer having found a prima facie case against the appellant submitted a chargesheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lawngtlai, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 22.08.2016. Prior to the filing of the chargesheet, the appellant was released on bail on 20.04.2016. The Court of Sessions then framed the charge under Sections 376-D and 342 IPC. The appellant however pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. As a result, trial commenced against the appellant and to establish their case, the prosecution examined 10 prosecution witnesses while the defence examined only one witness. After the parties led their respective evidences, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the CrPC whereafter, the Court below upon hearing the rival parties, passed the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and the Order of Sentence as already mentioned herein above.
5. Mr. B. Lalramenga, the learned counsel for the appellant by referring to the medical examination report of the alleged victim submits that no influence of alcohol or drug was found on her and that there was no mark of violence on her body except that her panty and short pant were found to be torn. There was no bruising/laceration of her external genitalia and that only remnant of hymen was found to be present. The learned counsel submits that the medical examination was done at 10.00 pm on the date of the alleged incident and that if the victim had indeed been gang raped between 3.00 - 4.00 pm on that day, the medical examination report of the victim would have clearly shown the crime committed upon her. The version of the victim is therefore not supported by the medical report and as such, he entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant by drawing the attention of the Court to the evidence of the Doctor, who was examined as PW-1 submits that the said witness reiterated the findings that he recorded in the medical examination repo
Joseph S/o. Kooveli Poulo Vs. State of Kerala
Lalliram & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Mussauddin Ahmed Vs. State of Assam
Pardeep Kumar Vs. Union Administration, Chandigarh
Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana
Vijay @ Chinee Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Mohd. Iqbal & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand
State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain reported in (1990) 1 SCC 550
State of U.P Vs. Pappu @ Yunus & Anr. reported in (2005) 3 SCC 594
State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh & Ors. reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384
Narender Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 7 SCC 171
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.