Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Gau) 682

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, MARLI VANKUNG, JJ.
Sh. C. Lallianpuia, Venglai, Champhai, under Champhai Police Station in the District of Champhai, Mizoram – Petitioner
Versus
State of Mizoram and Anr. – Respondents
Crl.A. No.13 Of 2023, I.A.(Crl.) No.20 Of 2023
Decided On : 02-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Lalremsanga Nghaka.
For the Respondents: Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mizoram, Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned Amicus Curiae.

The testimony of a child victim can suffice for conviction in sexual assault cases, even without corroboration, provided it is credible and trustworthy.

Headnote:(A) POCSO Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 341 - Conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault and wrongful restraint - The appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act for raping a 5-year-old girl and under Section 341 IPC for wrongful restraint. The evidence included the victim's testimony, corroborated by witnesses who heard her cries and observed her condition post-incident. The court emphasized that minor discrepancies in the victim's statements do not undermine her credibility. (Paras 2, 41)

(B) Evidence - Testimony of child witnesses - The court held that the testimony of a child victim is credible and can be sufficient for conviction without corroboration, provided it is trustworthy. (Paras 32, 34)

(C) Presumption of innocence - The appellant argued that the conviction was based on conjecture, but the court found sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 8, 43)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of raping a 5-year-old girl in a hut. The victim's parents authorized a witness to file an FIR. Medical examination revealed injuries consistent with sexual assault. (Paras 3, 11)

Findings of Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the victim's consistent testimony and corroborating evidence from witnesses. The conviction was upheld despite the defense's claims of insufficient evidence. (Paras 41, 43)

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the victim's testimony and whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellant. (Paras 8, 41)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the victim's testimony was credible and corroborated by other witnesses, and that minor discrepancies did not affect the core of her testimony. The appellant's intoxication and presence at the scene were also significant. (Paras 41, 43)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

(Michael Zothankhuma, J.)

Heard Mr. Lalremsanga Nghaka, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor and Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2

2. This appeal has put to challenge the Judgment & Order dated 12.12.2022 passed by the Special Court, POCSO Act, Champhai in S.R. No. 25/2020 arising out of Champhai P.S. Case No. 113/2020 dated 26.09.2020, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 341 IPC. Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 is the provision for punishment for committing the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault, in terms of Section 5(4) of the POCSO Act. Section 341 of the IPC is the provision for punishment for wrongful restraint.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR dated 26.09.2020 was submitted by the Prosecution Witness-1(PW-1), to the effect that he believed that the appellant had raped the 5 year old victim girl in a jhum hut located at Vengthar on 26.09.2020 during 5:00 p.m to 6:00 p.m. Further, the victim girl’s parents had given authority to the informant (PW-1) to lodge the FIR on their behalf. On the basis of the FIR, Champhai P.S. Case No. 113/2020 dated 26.09.2020 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was registered.

4. The victim was thereafter sent for medical examination on 26.09.2020 itself. The appellant was also arrested on the same date. After visiting the place of occurrence and making a sketch map, the I.O. started the investigation, during which time he seized the Birth Certificate of the victim girl. The statement of the victim (PW-2) was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class-II (JMFC-II), Champhai on 28.09.2020. The statements of PW-5 and PW-6 were also recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC on 05.10.2020 and 06.10.2020 respectively by the JMFC-II, Champhai. The statements of PW-9 and PW-10 under Section 164 Cr.PC were also recorded by the JMFC-II, Champhai on 14.10.2020.

5. The case I.O. thereafter having found a prima facie case under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 341 of IPC against the appellant, submitted the charge-sheet.

6. The learned Trial Court framed two charges under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 341 of IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court examined 11 Prosecution Witnesses and 4 Defence Witnesses. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein he did not deny the fact that he had been inside the hut with the victim girl and that since he was intoxicated, he could not recall why he had taken the victim to the jhum hut, instead of taking her to her grandmother.

7. The learned Trial Court on weighing the evidence, came to a finding that the appellant was guilty of having committed the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the 5 year old victim girl and wrongfully restraining her. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted by the learned Trial Court under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 341 of IPC and sentenced accordingly.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence adduced to connect the appellant with the alleged offence. He submits that the conviction of the appellant had only been made on the basis of conjectures and surmises. He submits that the learned Trial Court had only considered the materials favouring the prosecution and had completely ignored the evidence that had been recorded in favour of the appellant. He also submits that the evidence of the victim (PW-2), not being consistent with her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC, the discrepancy in the testimony of the victim vis-à-vis her statement under Section 164 could not have been the basis for convicting the appellant. He also submits that the evidence of the Doctor (PW-11) shows that the hymen was intact. As such, there was no ground for the learned Trial Court to have convicted the appellant under Section 6 o