Page No.# 1/9 GAHC030006942024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRL.A(J)/41/2024 Sh. Benjamin Lalramhrila S/o Thangbera R/o Lungsum, Mamit District VERSUS The State of Mizoram and Anr. Aizawl2:Sh. Lalzuilian Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr T Lalzekima (Amicus Curiae) Advocate for the Respondent : Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, APP. Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, Legal Aid Counsel BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) 02.06.2026 (Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J) Heard Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State Page No.# 2/9 respondent No. 1 and Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. This appeal is directed against the Final Judgment dated 25.06.2024 passed by the Court of the Learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court (Rape and Protection of Children from Sexual Offence) Act, Aizawl in Sessions case No. 151/2022 arising out of Crl. Trial No. 1890/2022 with reference to Sakawrdai P.S. Case No. 10/2022 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 4 of the Projection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "POCSO Act"). 3. The present case was started on 12nd October, 2022 as a result of the submission of a written complaint by Lalzuiliana of Lungsum to the Sakawrdai Police Station where it was stated that on 11th October, 2022 at around 10:00 PM to 12:00 PM (midnight) his daughter X, who was twelve years of age was raped by Benjamina of Lungsum near his house. 4. Upon receipt of the F.I.R, Sakawrdai P.S. Case No. 10/2022 was registered under Section 4 of the POCSO Act r/w Section 376(2) of IPC and in course of investigation the I.O. has examined the victim as well as the other witnesses Page No.# 3/9 and on completion thereof submitted that the charge-sheet against accused/appellant and the learned Court below framed charges under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In course of the trial the prosecution examined 9 nos. of witnesses. The accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Defence adduced the evidence of three witnesses. On completion of the trial the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as above. 5. We have heard Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, Mrs. Mary L. Khaingte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and also Mr. Lalrokunga, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 6. We do not propose to discuss the evidence on record for reasons that shall unfold in course of this judgment. 7. Section 354 Cr.P.C reads as follows:- "354. Language and contents of judgment.-(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code, every judgment referred to in section 353,- Page No.# 4/9 (a) shall be written in the language of the Court; (b) shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision; (c) shall specify the offence (if any) of which, and the section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or other law under which, the accused is convicted and the punishment to which he is sentenced; (d) if it be a judgment of acquittal, shall state the offence of which the accused is acquitted and direct that he be set at liberty." 8. A perusal of the Judgment would reveal that no point or points for determination was/were formulated by the learned trial Court. But that is not all. What we find is that the learned trial Court has elaborately reproduced the evidence of the prosecution witnesses but has failed to present any discussion whatsoever of the prosecution evidence adduced through as many as nine witnesses and neither has any reason been assigned for the decision arrived at by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court straightaway held as follows: “17. We shall come to the judgment and order now. On perusal of the statement of the victim recorded by the Police Officer who had investigated into the case during the course of his investigation, the Page No.# 5/9 statement of the victim recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class as per the provision of section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the deposition of the Medical Officer who had examined the victim as well as the accused in her examination in chief of her evidence and the deposition of the Forensic Scientific Officer holding the post of an Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Mizoram Aizawl, in his examination in chief of his evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the accused Benjamin Lalramhrila had committed an offence of penetrative sexual assault upon the victim in the instant case who was below sixteen years at the time of the incident. Although the learned counsel of the accused had pointed out the provision of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which reads – "84. Act of a person of unsound mind. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law," their Lordships in the Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court held in the case of Bal Bahadur vrs State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 2001(3) Crimes 108(HP) DB, in a case of defence plea of unsoundness of mind, crucial point of time for ascertaining state of mind of accused is the time when offence was committed. Page No.# 6/9 In the case of Gopal Bhowmik vrs State of Tripura reported in 2001 Cr. LJ. 2656 at page 2658, their Lordships in the Gauhati High Court held that insanity or unsoundness of mind itself does not permit to avail the benefit of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code unless it is proved that at the relevant time of commission of offence, the person concerned was of such a degree of mind making him incapable of knowing the nature of the act. In view of the statement of the victim recorded by the Police Officer who had investigated into the case and in view of the judicial statement of the victim recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Aizawl, the accused offender was apparent that he had knowingly committed the offence as he had invited the victim to come again to him for the same purpose. Therefore, the accused offender cannot be accepted as an unsound person to avail the benefit of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. Under the circumstances mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, we are constrained to convict the accused Benjamin Lalramhrila, to have committed an offence of penetrative sexual assault against a child below sixteen years of age at the time of the incident in accordance with the charge framed against him on 6 April, 2023. Therefore, we convict him accordingly.” 9. It is evident from the above that without a semblance of discussion or Page No.# 7/9 appreciation of the evidence on record, indicating or providing any logical narrative as to how the evidence so recorded establishes the guilt of the accused, the learned Court below proceeded to convict the accused under the Section with which he was originally charged i.e. Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 10. It hardly needs to be emphasized that a Court of law deciding the rights of parties are duty bound to assign reasons for their decisions. In a case of the present nature entailing such severe penal consequences, it is imperative that cogent and sufficient reasons are assigned by the learned trial Court, with reference to the evidence on record, before holding any person guilty of the offence with which he is charged. In fact, the same is necessary even in case the Court is of the view that the accused deserves an acquittal but we are anguished to note that the learned trial Court has miserably failed in its duty to adhere to the most basic principles of deciding a case, the observance of which must necessarily find reflection in the judgment, by which the decision of the Court is conveyed to the accused and as well as to the victim and the public at large. 11. It is also to be noted that the learned Trial Court failed to mention the specific section of law under which the appellant was convicted and the Page No.# 8/9 examination of the accused/appellant appears to have been a perfunctory one. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the present is a fit case for remand. 13. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and sentence and issue the following directions:- i) The case be remanded for proceeding afresh from the point of conclusion of defense evidence. The learned Trial Court may also examine the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. if necessary. ii) Thereafter, the learned trial Court shall hear the arguments afresh and pass a reasoned judgment by formulating points for determination in conformity with Section 354 Cr.P.C. 14. The appeal stands allowed with the aforesaid directions. Needless to say that the accused/appellant shall remain in custody till delivery of judgment afresh, unless granted bail otherwise. Page No.# 9/9 15. Send back the TCR. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant