The court upheld the conviction for sexual assault, affirming the victim's testimony as sufficient evidence and validating the birth certificate's admissibility despite challenges regarding its authenticity.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. J.H. Ricky Lalruatfela, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Emily L. Chhangte, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2 and Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. PP for the State.

1. This is a Jail Appeal from Central Jail, Aizawl by the appellant/convict K. Lalruatfela praying for setting aside and quashing of the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2023 in Session Case No. 149 of 2022 and Crl. Tr. No. 1861 of 2022 u/s 8 of POSCO Act, 2012 R/W Section 354-A(2) IPC.

2. The fact of the case in brief is that a written FIR was lodged by the father of the victim at Darlawn P.S. on 06.10.2022. It was stated in the FIR that the victim was alone in their house on the evening of 02.10.2022 when the accused came in and assaulted her by pulling her into a bench and touched her breast and kissed her. Darlawn P.S. case No. 11 of 2022 dated 06.10.2022 was accordingly registered and investigated. Having found a prima facie case against the accused, the charge sheet was submitted containing a list of five prosecution witnesses along with the FIR, the arrest memo and birth certificate of the victim. Charge was framed against the accused person on 02.03.2023 under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, (POSCO) Act, 2012 and Section 354-A (2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defense produced one witness. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. on 07.09.2023.

3. The learned Trial Court framed three points for determination:

(i) Whether X was a child at the time of the alleged assault on 2.10.2022?

(ii) Whether the accused had committed an act amounting to sexual assault and sexual harassment on her at the time and, if so, whether it would take the aggravated form?

(iii) If so, what punishment would be appropriate in the circumstances of the case?

On the basis of the evidence as adduced in the present case, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the charge under Section-8 of the POSCO Act, 2012 r/w 364-A (2) of the IPC had been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3(three) years and Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) fine. In default he is to undergo further simple imprisonment of 1(one) week.

4. Being aggrieved the convict/appellant Shri. K. Lalruatfela has preferred this appeal from jail. This Court appointed learned counsel Mr. J.H. Ricky Lalruatfela, as Amicus Curiae to appear on behalf of the accused/appellant.

5. Learned counsel Mr. J.H. Ricky Lalruatfela has argued that there is delay in filing the FIR as the alleged incident happened on 02.10.2022, but the FIR was lodged on 06.10.2022. He also states that there are three FIRs as per the records. One is that the victim in her deposition stated that she went to the Darlawn P.S on 06.10.22 and the police questioned her and asked her to sign her name on the typed FIR. The second one is that the father of the victim Lalhumhima deposing as PW stated that they had a family meeting and decided to lodge an FIR which was drafted in the computer by his elder sibling and submitted to Darlawn P.S. and the third FIR is the one dated 06.10.2022 exhibited as Exhibit P-1. It is therefore doubtful as to which one is the actual FIR.

6. Learned counsel also states that the birth certificate has not been proved in accordance with law. While, referring to the birth certificate which is exhibited during the trial as Exhibit M-1 he states that the Exhibit is only a photocopy, and it was never compared with the original copy before the court. He has also stated that the birth certificate shows that the date of birth of the victim is 15.09.2008. However, the birth certificate was issued only on 13.01.2009, which means that the birth certificate was issued belatedly and appears to be an afterthought. Learned Amicus Curiae also submits that the authority who issued the birth certificate was not examined and therefore, learned