A judgment must explicitly formulate points for determination and provide a reasoned analysis of all evidence, including defense testimony. Failure to address the defense case, provide a logical narrative, or comply with statutory requirements for writing judgments renders a conviction legally unsustainable and requires a fresh decision.

JUDGMENT :

The criminal appeal arises from the order dated 27th March 2025,passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast-Track Special Court (Rape and Protection of Children from Sexual Offence) at Aizawl, Mizoram in SCNo. 108 of 2019, corresponding to Criminal TR No. 1746 of 2019, whereby the present appellant had been convicted of having committed offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act 2012 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 20 years with fine amounting to Rs. 10,000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three months.

2. The records of the case reveal that a complaint was lodged by the mother of the victim on 10th of July 2019, before the appropriate police authorities, raising a grievance that her daughter was sexually assaulted multiple times since 2017, when she studied in Class 6, by the accused in a shop owned by the accused. After having registered the case, the appellant was taken into custody, and an investigation was carried out. On completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted on 21st of August 2019, levelling charges under Section 376 AB of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

3. During the trial, the prosecution examined the mother of the victim as PW 1. The victim herself was examined as PW 2. The teacher to whom the victim had made the first complaint was thereafter examined as PW 3. PW 4, who was working as an outreach worker at District Child Protection, had assisted in the lodging of the FIR. PW 5 was the class teacher of the victim in her school when she studied in class 8. PW 8, was posted at Civil Hospital, Aizawl, during the year 2019, in the Casualty Department. He had carried out the medical examination of the accused. On receiving a requisition, PW 9 examined the victim on the same day, that is 10th July 2019, around 4:20 PM. PW 10 was the Chief Judicial Magistrate who had recorded the statement of the victim under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973. PW11 was the Investigation Officer. The case was handed over to P.W. 12 after the transfer on promotion of the earlier Investigating Officer. From the materials collected, P.W. 12, on the grounds of a prima facie case, filed a chargesheet U/S 6 of the POCSO Act, R/W 376 AB IPC.

4. The accused, C. Lalremliana, in his statement recorded under the provisions of section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, had denied all the questions put to him. He had submitted that he would adduce evidence in his defence.

5. DW 1 is the daughter of the accused, who used to live with her father, the accused. The second daughter of the accused had adduced evidence as DW 2. The accused examined himself as the DW 3.

6. The defense had submitted written arguments in the matter on 18.2.2025, which, in the words of the learned Trial Court, were voluminous, and the learned APP had made oral arguments.

7. The accused appellant was convicted and sentenced by the order dated 27th March 2025, which is impugned herein.

8. Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned Counsel for the appellant, Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mizoram, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, and Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned Legal