IMPORTANT POINT
In cases of sexual assault, the victim's testimony is paramount, and the mental state of the victim does not diminish the credibility of her account; corroboration is not a strict requirement if the testimony is reliable.

JUDGMENT :

(Malasri Nandi, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram for the State respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Champhai, Mizoram in Sessions Case No. 126/2017 whereby the accused appellant was convicted under Section 376(2)(l) of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in default, Simple Imprisonment for one month.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the informant who is the brother of the victim lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Champhai Police Station stating inter alia that the accused appellant on 02.09.2016 at around 11:00 pm, threatened the victim and committed rape on her in the residence of Mrs. Pari. As the victim is mentally unsound, she did not initially inform them about the issue and thereafter, knowing about the alleged incident, he lodged the FIR. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered as Champhai PS Case No. 133/2016 u/s 376(2)(l) of IPC and the investigation was initiated.

4. During investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the witnesses and the victim was forwarded for medical examination. After completion of the investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the accused appellant u/s 376 (2)(l) of IPC before the learned CJM, Champhai. As the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed accordingly.

5. During trial, charge was framed u/s 376 (2)(l) of IPC which was read over and explained to the accused appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In the course of trial, 6 prosecution witnesses were examined and the victim was examined as court witness. After completion of trial, statement of the appellant was recorded u/s 313 CrPC, wherein the incriminating materials found in the statement of the witnesses were put to him to which he first denied the same. But subsequently, the appellant admitted that he committed rape on the victim. But he wanted to mention that the time of rape alleged was wrong. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, the appellant was convicted as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

7. It was urged by learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant that there are lots of contradiction in the evidence of the victim and other witnesses regarding the alleged incident. There is no eye witness to the incident. PW-3 did not support the case of the prosecution that the victim was sexually abused by the appellant. In a cross examination, PW-3 specifically stated that when he came to the spot, he found both the victim and the appellant were fully dressed. He saw no act of rape. There was subsequent improvement in the evidence of the victim and there is no cogent and consistent evidence to connect the appellant in the case.

8. It is also the submission of learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant that as per FIR, immediately after the incident, the matter has not been informed to the informant and the victim has belatedly implicated the accused and the case is only based on presumption, assumption and conjectures and not based on eye witness or any other material evidence to show that the appellant was involved in the case. The appellant was incorporated as an accused based on the statement recorded under Sections 161 CrPC and 164 CrPC which are contradictory to the complaint.

9. It is further submitted that the victim is mentally retarded as per evidence of the Medical Officer. Though the victim has implicated the accused that he had committed such offence but the other witnesses examined by the prosecution did not support the evidence of the victim. The Medical Officer who examined the victim was not examined in the case. The Medica