2024 Supreme(Gau) 1497
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH, Mridul Kumar Kalita, JJ
Sh. Lalhmingsanga S/o Thanghuama – Appellant
Versus
The State of Mizoram and Anr. – Respondent
CRL.A(J)/13/2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: None
Advocate for the Respondent: P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram
The court ruled that insufficient evidence regarding the identity of the accused precludes conviction, emphasizing the necessity of lawful identification procedures.
Headnote:(A) POCSO Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Indian Penal Code - Section 376-AB - Conviction and sentence of 20 years rigorous imprisonment for sexual assault on a minor girl - The conviction was based on insufficient evidence regarding the identity of the appellant as the perpetrator, leading to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. (Paras 44, 45)
(B) Test Identification Parade - The court emphasized the necessity of proper identification of the accused, noting that the victim had seen the appellant before the TIP, rendering the identification inadmissible. (Paras 40, 43)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl, with the prosecution relying on the victim's testimony and a TIP for identification.
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to confirm the appellant's identity as the assailant, leading to the conclusion that he should be acquitted.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was properly identified as the perpetrator of the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without proper identification, the conviction could not be sustained, emphasizing the importance of lawful identification procedures.
Result: Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fir lodged by victim's mother (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 2. appellant's counsel argues insufficient evidence (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 3. court reviews evidence and testimonies (Para 27) |
| 4. insufficient evidence for conviction (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 5. conviction set aside (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
JUDGEMENT & ORDER (CAV)
( M.K. Kalita, j.)
1. Heard Ms. Emily L. Chhangte, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Mizoram for the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Lalramdinthara, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2.
2. This jail appeal has been registered on receipt of an appeal petition from the appellant, Lalhmingsanga, who is currently detained in the Central Jail, Aizawl. The appeal petition has been forwarded to this Court through the Special Superintendent Central Jail, Aizawl. The appellant has impugned the judgment dated 06.12.2023, passed by learned Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Aizawl in S.C. No. 64/2019 (Criminal Trial No. 783/2019), whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 376-AB of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 1(one) week.
3. The facts relevant for adjudication of this jail appeal, in brief, are as follows:-
4. To bring home the charges, the prosecution side examined 9(nine) out of 10(ten) witnesses listed in the charge-sheet. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, during which he denied the truthfulness of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and pleaded his innocence. However, he declined to adduce any evidence in his defence. Ultimately, by the judgment which is impugned in this appeal, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the manner as described in Paragraph No. 2 of this judgment hereinbefore.
5. Before considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides, let us go through the relevant evidence which is available on record.
6. PW-1, who is the mother of the victim ‘X’ as well as the first informant of the case, namely, Laledenmawii, has deposed before the Trial Court on 29.07.2019 a