IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces the principle that in cases of sexual assault against mentally or physically disabled individuals, corroborative evidence and the credibility of witness testimonies are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned Amicus Curiae along with Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

[2.] This is a criminal appeal filed from jail against the judgment and order passed in Session Case No. 129/2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, wherein the appellant was convicted under 376 (2)(l) IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, i.d. Simple Imprisonment for another 10 days.

[3.] Facts of the case in brief is that on 27.06.2014, a written FIR was received from Vanlaldiki, D/o Rochungnunga of Ratu Hall veng to the effect that on 27.06.2014 at around 2:30 PM, the accused had raped ‘X’ at C Hall, who was mentally handicapped. On receipt of the FIR, Darlawn PS Case No. 18/2014 dated 27.06.2014 under Section 376 (2)(f) IPC was registered and investigated into by S.I. C. Zonunmawia of Darlawn Police Station. During the course of investigation, the informant was examined. The P.O was visited and sketch map was drawn. The victim was forwarded to the Medical Officer, PHC Darlawn for medical examination, wherein the report of the medical examination stated that the victim’s hymen has been ruptured. The case I.O then confirmed the mental and physical disability of the victim and as the victim could not be sent to the Judicial Magistrate in Aizawl, the Executive Magistrate, Dawlawn recorded the statement given by the victim’s elder sister K. Lalnunpuii, which was affirmed by the victim girl. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and a prima facie case under 376(2)(l) IPC was found and charge sheet submitted accordingly. The prosecution examined as many as 6 (six) prosecution witnesses, after which the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and 2 (two) defence witnesses were examined. One of them being the appellant himself as DW-2. The learned Trial Court after hearing the submissions of both the parties convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, i.d. Simple Imprisonment for another 10 days. Aggrieved by the above, the instant criminal appeal has been filed.

[4.] Mr. Lalfakawma, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the FIR was registered on 27.06.2014 at around 9:30 PM and the incident was said to occur on 26.06.2014 at around 2:30 PM. On perusal of the evidence of PW-1, who is the informant, it is seen that he got to know about the incident from K. Lalnunpuii. However, K. Lalnunpuii, who was the first person to know about the incident has not been made a prosecution witness, there is no explanation as to why her name was not been included in the list of prosecution witness when it appears that she was the first person to whom the victim had informed about the incident. PW-2 and PW-3 were informed about the incident, PW-2 was informed of the incident by the victim’s father. However, the victim’s father has also not been made a prosecution witness. Both PW-2 and PW-3 mentioned that blood was oozing out from the private parts of the victim. However, as per the evidence of the Doctor, PW-4, though it says that hymen was not intact, the medical report shows that there was no bruising of the vagina of the victim hymen and no semen was found on her private parts. PW-6 is the case I.O, while DW-1 is the mother of the convict appellant and DW-2 is the convict appellant himself. From the statements made by the prosecution witnesses, there is no contradiction as to whether the incident occurred on 26.06.2014 or 27.06.2014. If the incident had occurred on 26.06.2014, there is a delay of 24 hours in filing the FIR, which is not explained and if the incident had occurred on 27.06.2014, then it is contradictory with the medical report, wherein the victim was examined at around 10:00 PM in the night and the incident had occurred at around 2:00 PM. However, there is no bruise found in the private part of the victim wher