A trial court must follow procedural laws and provide cogent reasoning in judgments, especially in serious criminal cases, or risk a miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

(Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J.)

Heard Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and Mrs. Emily. L. Chhangte, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No.2

2. This appeal is directed against the Final Judgment dated 19.12.2024, passed by the Court of the Learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court (Rape and Protection of Children from Sexual Offence) Act, Aizwal in Sessions case No. 30/2022 arising out of Crl. Trial No. 424/2022 with reference to All Women P.S. Case No. 5/2022 convicting the Accused/Appellant under Section 12 ,10 and 6 of the Projection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”).

3. A written complaint was lodged by the informant stating that her younger sister ‘X’ who stayed with her step father/accused/appellant from August, 2012 to June, 2013 was subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused appellant several times, at his residence at Melthum when the victim was only nine years of age.

4. Upon receipt of the F.I.R, All Women P.S. Case No. 05/2022 was registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act r/w Section 376 (2)(i)(n) of IPC and in course of investigation the I.O. has examined the victim as well as the other witnesses and on completion thereof submitted that the charge-sheet against accused/appellant and the learned Court below framed charges under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In course of the trial the prosecution examined 8 nos. of witnesses. The accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Defence adduced the evidence of two witnesses. On completion of the trial the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as above.

5. We have heard Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and also Mrs. Emily. L. Chhangte, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

6. We do not propose to discuss the evidence on record for reasons that shall unfold in course of this judgment.

7. Section 354 Cr.P.C reads as follows:-

“354. Language and contents of judgment.—(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code, every judgment referred to in section 353,—

(a) shall be written in the language of the Court;

(b) shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision;

(c) shall specify the offence (if any) of which, and the section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or other law under which, the accused is convicted and the punishment to which he is sentenced;

(d) if it be a judgment of acquittal, shall state the offence of which the accused is acquitted and direct that he be set at liberty.”

8. A perusal of the Judgment would reveal that no point or points for determination was/were formulated by the learned trial Court, but that is not all. What we find is that the learned trial Court has elaborately reproduced the evidence of the prosecution witnesses but has failed to foresent any discussion whatsoever of the prosecution evidence adduced through as many as eight witnesses and neither has any reason been assigned for the decision arrived at by the learned trial Court. Although two witnesses i.e. D.W. 1 & 2 were examined by the defence, their depositions have not been brought on record in the impugned judgment and their testimonies have been discarded without discussing what the said D.W.s have deposed. The learned trial Court straight away held as follows:-

“13. After the accused Rengsibula was examined as per