In rape cases, a conviction can only be upheld if the prosecution proves non-consensual intercourse beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the importance of considering all evidence presented.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

Heard Mr. S. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Linda L Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent.

2. This criminal appeal is presented under Section 374(2) of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment & order dated 21.08.2023 and sentence order dated 22.08.2023, passed in All Women PS Case No.44/2021 (Crl.Trl No.108 of 2022) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Aizawl, Mizoram (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”) convicted the appellant under Section 376 (1) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and sentenced thereof to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10(ten) years and fine of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand) only, in default to Simple Imprisonment for 10(ten) days.

3. The brief fact of the case is that on 11.10.2022, the victim “X” lodged an F.I.R., alleging, inter alia, that she was raped by her cousin brother i.e., the accused/appellant in the early morning, around 1.00 am to 3.00 am, inside his bedroom at his house. Accordingly, a case was registered and investigated. During investigation, the victim was examined, her statement was recorded, and she was sent for medical examination. Her vaginal swabs were also taken and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as “FSL”) for examination. The Investigating Officer, after arresting the accused/appellant and interrogating him and examining other witnesses, submitted Charge-sheet against the accused/appellant. Thereafter, the trial Court framed charges against the accused/appellant on 06.06.2022 under Section 376 (1) of the IPC.

4. During the trial, the prosecution adduced 7(seven) witnesses, who were also cross-examined by the defence. Thereafter, the accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he explained the incriminating evidence as well as adduced 2(two) defence witnesses. After completion of the trial, the trial Court pronounced its judgment on 21.08.2023 and sentenced the accused/appellant thereof. As such, the present criminal appeal.

5. Mr. S. Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court completely erred in ignoring the explanation given by the accused/appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., which was probable under the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that there is no sufficient material and evidence against the accused/appellant, and the case is also doubtful, as the statement of the victim being sexually assaulted is improbable under the surrounding facts and circumstances, and hence, the accused/appellant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. He further submits that even if it is assumed that there was some sexual act, it was consensual, and therefore, the conviction is erroneous in law. He further submits that the conviction is also vitiated for non-examination of the sister of the victim, who allegedly was the first person in the morning of 11.10.2021 to whom the victim had made a call immediately after running out of the house of the accused/appellant. He further submits that the first person, Ruatsanga, who opened the door in the morning, was also not examined and cited as a witness. He further submits that it is apparent from the deposition of PW-2 that the victim refused to go upstairs to their house to sle