The court affirmed convictions for human trafficking and sexual offences against a minor, ruling that the trial was fair despite minor procedural errors, emphasized the gravity of abetting prostitution and sexual assault.

JUDGMENT :

Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.

1) Heard Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, as well as Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned Legal Aid Counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2.

2) This appeal under Section 415 of BNSS, 2023, has been preferred by the appellant Smt. Zonunmawii, impugning the Judgment dated 17.02.2025 as well as order of Sentence dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, in Sessions Case No. 82/2022, in connection with Criminal Trial No. 626/2020, corresponding to All Women P.S. Case No. 14/2022, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 4(1)/5(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, read with Section 6/16 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 376/109 of the Indian Penal Code.

3) The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that on 17.03.2022, one Smt. K. Lalrinsiami, Social Worker, District Child Protection Unit, Aizawl, had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of All Women P.S., Aizawl, inter alia, alleging that, on 17.03.2022, at about 04:00 pm, she received an information over telephone from MHIP, Zuangtui, wherein it was informed that one minor girl (hereinafter referred to as ‘X’ to protect the identity of the victim), aged about 13 years, was induced into prostitution by the present appellant and her husband namely Lalrinchhana. It was also alleged in the FIR that the minor victim ‘X’ was sold to several males from 13.01.2022 to the last part of February, 2022.

4) On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the All-Women P.S. Case No. 14/2022 was registered under Section 4(1)/5(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, read with Section 376 (3) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and the investigation was initiated.

5) Upon completion of the investigation, the Charge Sheet was laid against the present appellant (A2) and four other accused persons including the husband of the appellant namely Sh. Lalrinchhana (A1). The other accused persons against whom Charge Sheet was laid were Sh. Daniel Lalhmachhuana (A3), Sh. Andrew Lalrintluanga (A4) and Sh. K. Lalbiakmawia (A5). The accused,Sh. Andrew Lalrintluanga had absconded, during the pendency of the trial court, therefore, the judgment could not the pronounced against him, however, it proceeded against the other accused persons including the present appellant.

6) After considering the materials available on record as well as after hearing the learned counsel for both sides, the learned Judge, Special Court, POCSO Act, Aizawl, on 18.08.2022, framed charges under Section 4(1)/5(1) (a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, as well as under Section 376 and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, against the present appellant. When the said charges were read over and explained to the appellant, she pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried. Similarly, charges were framed against other accused persons who were facing trial.

7) During trial, though, 20 prosecution witnesses were listed in the Charge Sheet by the Investigating Officer, however, to bring home the charges against the accused persons including the present appellant, the prosecution side examined 17 of the listed charge sheeted witnesses including the victim girl. The present appellant was examined by the Trial Court under Section 313 of the Court of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on 09.