Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030002632025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRL.A(J)/19/2025 Sh. H. Zonunthanga S/o Manthanga (L) R/o Tawizo Saitual District VERSUS State of Mizoram and Anr. Aizawl2:Smt. Zosanglian Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jonathan L Sailo (Amicus Curiae) Advocate for the Respondent : Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, APP Mr. H. Zodinsanga, Legal Aid counsel (R2) :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA Date on which judgment is reserved : 10.06.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 10.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : N/A operative part of the judgment ? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? Page No.# 2/6 JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) (Michael Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. Jonathan L. Sailo, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned Legal Aid counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. This is a jail appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the Special Court, POCSO, Aizawl in S.C. No. 57/2019, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The appellant has also been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 12 (Twelve) years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only, in default of payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for a period of 25 (Twenty Five) days, vide sentence Order dated 31.05.2023. 3. The facts of the case in brief is that an FIR dated 22.11.2018 was submitted by the mother of the victim girl (PW-1) to the Officer-in- Charge of Saitual Police Station, stating that on 05.08.2013, her husband, the appellant, had sexual intercourse with her daughter (victim) a number of times, whose date of birth was 08.07.1999. The victim was also the daughter of her husband (appellant). Due to the above, the victim became pregnant with the child. Though they claimed that the father of the child was somebody else, she came to realize on 20.11.2018 that her husband was the father of the child born to their daughter. As her daughter (victim) was threatened by the appellant not to reveal anything on pain of death, she did not reveal who the actual father was. Pursuant to the FIR, STL-PS Case No. 25/2018, dated 22.11.2018 was registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 4. After investigation of the case was completed by the Investigating Officer, charge sheet was submitted, wherein a prima facie case under Section 6 was found established against the appellant. 5. The learned Trial Court, thereafter framed charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the Page No.# 3/6 appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined ten prosecution witnesses. However, as PW-1 had been declared a hostile witness, the Trial Court recalled PW-1 as a Court Witness (CW-1). Thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein, he admitted that he had made his daughter pregnant. 7. A DNA test had also been conducted upon the appellant, victim and her child, which proved that the appellant was the father of the child and due to the evidence adduced by the victim, naming the appellant as the father of the child, which was admitted by the appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 8. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that except for the delay in filing the FIR, which was about 4 years after the incident, there does not appear to be any other ground to challenge the impugned Judgment & Order. 9. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submit that the evidence of the victim (PW-4), which is to the effect that she became pregnant due to her father having sex with her, has been corroborated by her statement given under Section 164 CrPC. Further, due to the admission of the evidence adduced against him during examination of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC and the DNA test report plus medical evidence, there is no escape from the fact that the appellant had sex with his minor daughter, due to which she became pregnant and a son born to the victim. 10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 11. Section 164 CrPC statement of the victim is to the effect that she was born on 08.07.1999 and that her father first had sex with her on 05.08.2013. Thereafter, he had sex with her a number of times and he threatened her from disclosing about the incident on pain of death. Thereafter, a son was born to the victim on 18.09.2015. The testimony of the victim (PW4) before the learned Trial Court is also to the Page No.# 4/6 effect that her father had first raped her on 05.08.2013 and continued to have sex with her a number of times. She got pregnant and had his child. PW-14 further stated that she got married in the year, 2018 and that her father was upset about her marriage and had physically assaulted her mother because of it. The evidence of the doctor (PW-5) is to the effect that there were remnants of the hymen present in the victim and that the doctor had been told by the victim that she had been raped by her father. 12. The evidence of PW-9, who was the Assistant Director, FSL, Government of Mizoram, is to the effect that he subjected the blood samples of the appellant, victim and the victim's son to a DNA test by FTA card extraction method. The DNA test report showed that the appellant was the biological father of the victim's son. 13. The Questions and Answers of the appellant, during examination of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC. is reproduced hereinbelow as follows:- “Q. It is in the evidence against you that on 05.08.2013 you and your daughter X aged about 14 yrs went to Tawizo jungle to fetch firewood and you raped her. What do you have to say in explanation? A. Yes, it is correct. But, it is a fact that I had sexual intercourse with my daughter X, but with her consent. Q. It is in the evidence against you that you raped her from time to time in the forest and at your house after 05.08.2013. What do you have to say in explanation? A. I had sexual intercourse for about 3 yrs and she got pregnant. Q. It is in the evidence against you that you made her pregnant and she gave birth to your child on September 2015. What do you have to say in explanation? A. Yes, it is correct. Q. It is in the evidence against you that you threatened the victim that you would kill her if disclosure would be made to anybody. What do you have to say in explanation? A. I do not know whether I had threatened my daughter. Q. It is in the evidence against you that you were arrested by the police on 23.11.2018 in connection Page No.# 5/6 with the present case. What do you have to say in explanation? A. Yes. Q. It is in the evidence against you that when the police interrogated you regarding the alleged incident, you admitted of having sex with the victim several times and make her pregnant. What do you have to say in explanation? A. Yes. Q. Do you want to adduce defense evidence? A. No. Q. Do you have anything to say before the Court? A. Yes. I know that the victim X has not made any complaint against me.” 14. A perusal of the examination of the appellant under Section 313 of CrPC. clearly goes to show that the appellant has admitted to having raped his daughter and making her pregnant. 15. PW-1, who is the mother of the victim and the wife of the appellant was declared a hostile witness during her testimony as PW-1 and she was cross-examined by the prosecution. However, on being re- called by the Trial Court as a Court witness, she gave her testimony again on 26.05.2023 as CW-1, wherein she stated that she had submitted the FIR due to the sexual assault committed upon her daughter by the appellant. The declaration of the victim's mother as a hostile witness during her testimony as PW-1 could be for various reasons. One of the reasons could be due to the desire of a wife to protect her husband from being convicted of a crime. Whatever be the reason for the mother of the victim being declared a hostile witness, we have no reason to doubt the fact that the appellant is the father of the child born to his daughter in the year 2015. As the victim was born in the year 1999, it is crystal clear that the victim has committed an offense punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act against his daughter. 16. In view of the reasons stated above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Trial Court. Page No.# 6/6 17. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Send back the TCR. 18. In appreciation of the assistance provided by the learned Amicus Curiae and the Legal Aid Counsel, their fees should be paid by the High Court Legal Services committee. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant