Intellectual disability does not render a witness incompetent under the law. If an individual can communicate rationally, their testimony is admissible; when consistent and supported by trial protocols, such evidence is sufficient for conviction even without additional scientific corroboration.

Yarenjungla Longkumer, J.

Heard the learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Joseph Lalchhanhima for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Linda Fambawl, learned P.P for the State respondent No.1.

2. The present appeal under section 374 of the Cr.PC has been filed by the appellant, namely Ramngaizuala, impugning the judgment and sentence dated 16.02.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Champhai in Session Case No.48/2019 corresponding to Crl. Tr. No.429/2019, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 376(2)(l) IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, and in default of payment to undergo S.I for two months.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR was lodged by the informant/PW 1 who is the father of the victim on 08.04.2019 at the Champhai P.S alleging that on 07.04.2019, the accused/appellant had raped his daughter who is mentally disabled. Upon receipt of the FIR, the Champhai P.S Case No.18/2019 under 6 of the POCSO Act was registered. During investigation, the I.O visited the place of occurrence which was the house of one Rami of Tlangsam, Champhai district. The I.O also examined the complainant, the victim and other witnesses and also took the victim for medical examination. The statement of the victim was also recorded under section 164 Cr.PC. During the investigation, the I.O also seized the birth certificate of the victim and found that she was 20 years and 18 days at the time of the incident and therefore a prayer for alteration of charge from section 6 of the POCSO Act to section 376 (2) (l) IPC was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the charge was accordingly altered. The victim girl was also forwarded to a clinical psychologist to make assessment of her mental age and the Psychologist opined that the mental age of the victim is 6 years with IQ of 40 and that she is in the category of moderate retardation. Upon completion of investigation, the I.O submitted a charge-sheet against the accused/appellant under section 376 (2)(l) IPC.

4. After the charge-sheet was filed the case was committed to the Fast Track Special Court Champhai district. The accused/appellant appeared before the trial Court and charges were framed against him section 376 (2) (l)IPC, which was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial proceeded against him.

5. During the trial the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.PC in which the accused pleaded denial and further stated that on the day of the incident the victim had come to his house. He also stated that at that time a porn movie was being played on the T.V. The victim herself removed her clothes and applying saliva on her private part he touched it and when she told him that it was painful he immediately stopped touching. She then got angry and went home. Her mother called him to their house and told him that this was to never happen again. He did not know why they submitted FIR against him. The accused also examined his brother Ramlawmi as DW-1.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating the evidence adduced, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as stated herein above.

7. The first ground taken