Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1409
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MARLI VANKUNG, RAJESH MAZUMDAR, JJ.
Sh. Lalfela S/o Lalhmingthanga – Appellant
VERSUS
State of Mizoram and Anr. – Respondent
CRL.A(J)/6 of 2025
Decided on : 24-09-2025
For the Appellant : Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi, Amicus Curiae
For the respondent No.1: Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, Addl. P.P. Mizoram
For the respondent No.2: Ms. Emily L. Chhangte, Legal Aid counsel
The right to cross-examination is essential; denying it jeopardizes trial fairness, particularly in serious cases under child protection laws.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Appeal against conviction - Appellant convicted for aggravated penetrative sexual assault - Sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. (Paras 1-2)
(B) Right to Cross-examine - Denial of opportunity to cross-examine pivotal witnesses - It prejudices the accused's defense and could vitiate the trial's conclusions. (Paras 5, 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
Appellant convicted for repeatedly raping his underage daughter resulting in her pregnancy. On appeal, it was contended that the trial court erred by stating the defense refused to cross-examine witnesses when, in fact, cross-examination was deferred.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the trial court's conclusions were flawed due to the failure to allow cross-examination, which could have impacted the fairness of the trial.
Issues: The central issues included the denial of cross-examination opportunities and the integrity of evidence against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court emphasized the critical nature of cross-examination, arguing that the absence of this right jeopardized the fairness of the trial.
Result: The conviction and sentence were quashed, and the matter was remanded for a new trial with cross-examination opportunities for the defense.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction of appellant under pocso act. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's evaluation of trial court's findings. (Para 4 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. arguments on cross-examination denial. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. importance of cross-examination in legal proceedings. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 5. judgment remanded for proper cross-examination. (Para 16 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
R. Mazumdar, J.
1. Heard Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. P.P for the State and Ms. Emily L. Chhangte, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who is presently serving the sentence imposed upon conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, assailing the judgment & order dated 25.07.2022, passed by the learned Judge, Fast Track Court-cum-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib District, Kolasib in S.C(K) No. 30/2020, arising out of Crl. Tr. BBI. No. 114/2020. The appellant, by the aforesaid order, was convicted and by order dated 26.7.2022 he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of the fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 10 months.
3. Records received from the Trial Court reveal that an FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge of the Bairabi Police Station, Bairabi by the grandfather of the victim on 18.06.2020 alleging that his granddaughter had been repeatedly raped by her father since January 2020 every time he got drunk and that his granddaughter was six months pregnant. The informant disclosed that the victim was 16 years old. In the FIR, it was stated that the accused lived in a separate house with the victim and that towards the end of the year 2020, the informant had brought his granddaughter to his home when he realized that she was pregnant.
Investigation of the case was thereafter taken up by the concerned authority and the birth certificate of the victim was seized in the presence of the witness. The accused was arrested and interrogated. The charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was framed against the accused/appellant herein on 18.11.2020 by the Trial Court. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial.
6(six) prosecution witnesses were examined during the trial. The complainant appeared as PW-1 and the victim appeared as PW-2. Police Constable PC Lalengzuali appeared as PW-3, 2(two) Doctors involved in the investigation appeared as PW-5 & 6 respectively and the Investigating Officer of the case appeared as PW-7. PW-4, who was a Judicial Officer who recorded the statement of the victim, was exempted from examination.
On the prosecution evidence being closed, the accused was examined under the provisions of Section 313 of the Cr.PC on 25.05.2022 where he denied allegations leveled upon him.
4. On evaluating the evidence led and after considering the arguments made on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the victim was a child and was also the daughter of the accused and that the accused had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim several times resulting in the victim becoming pregnant.
Accordingly, the accused was convicted for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault of the child, for which he would be liable to receive sentence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The aforesaid finding of conviction had been arrived at on 25.07.2022 and the learned Trial Court heard the appellant on the sentence. By order dated 26.07.2022, the sentence which is already referred to herein above was imposed on the accused.
5. Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment & order dated 25.07.2022 deserves the interference of this Court in appellate jurisdiction for more than one reasons. However, one aspect of the matter which has been argued has gripped the attention of the Court, which in our o
