The victim's credible testimony can sustain a conviction in sexual assault cases even without corroborative medical evidence, acknowledging the victim's disability and the nature of consent.

JUDGMENT :

PRANJAL DAS, J.

Heard Ms. Valentina Laldinpuii, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Emily L. Chhangte, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No. 1.

2. The convict-appellant Sri Khamliana, alias Zakhamliana, has preferred the present criminal appeal against the Judgment dated 20.03.2023, by which he was convicted under Section 376 (2)(f)(l)(n) of IPC in S.R. No. 91/2018, arising out of Darlawn PS Case No. 5/2018. For such conviction, the learned Trial Court, vide Order dated 21.03.2023, sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months.

3. On 13.04.2018, Lalchhanhimi, Counsellor, One Stop Centre, Durtlang North, Social Welfare, lodged an FIR that the girl, namely ‘X’, was repeatedly raped by her stepfather, Zakhamliana, from 2016 till April 2018 at their residence. It was further stated in the FIR that the girl was mentally retarded, and the police authorities were requested to take action. On the basis of the FIR, Aizawl PS Case No. 0/2018 was registered under Section 376 (2)(f)(e) IPC . However, later, the territorial jurisdiction was found to be different, and the case was transferred with the permission of the Court to Darlawn Police Station, whereupon Darlawn P.S. Case No. 5/2018 was registered under (2) (f)(l)(n). Investigation was started, during which the appellant was arrested. After completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant under (2)(f)(l)(n) , vide C.S. No. 6/2018 dated 21.06.2018. After the usual formalities, vide Order dated 28.06.2018, the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aizawl framed charge against the appellant under the same Section, i.e., (2)(f)(l)(n) .

4. The charge being denied by the appellant led to the commencement of the trial, in which the prosecution examined nine (9) witnesses, including the informant, the M.O. and the I.O. The wife of the appellant, who stated that she was the biological mother of the victim, adduced evidence as DW-1. The victim herself was examined as Court Witness No. 1 (CW-1). It may be mentioned herein that after completion of the prosecution evidence and before commencement of the defence evidence, the appellant, as accused, was duly examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After appreciating the evidence adduced at the trial and hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as already narrated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

5. Ms. Valentina Laldinpuii, the learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the convict-appellant, has taken the Court through the evidence and other relevant materials on record. She submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove the case during the trial and hence, the conviction and sentence of the appellant were erroneous. It was submitted that the statement o