Page No.# 1/19 GAHC030002272025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRL.A(J)/14/2025 Sh. Lalfakzuala S/o Phirthanga R/o Muthi Village Aizawl VERSUS State of Mizoram and Anr. Aizawl2:Smt. Lalrinpui Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr T Lalzekima (Amicus Curiae) Advocate for the Respondent : 1. Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, Addl.PP, Mizoram 2. Mrs. Emily L. Chhangte, Legal Aid Counsel 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 : 12.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : N/A operative part of the judgment ? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? Page No.# 2/19 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (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 respondent and Mrs. Emily L. Chhangte, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2/informant. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned Judgment and Sentence Order in S.C. No. 101 of 2022, Crl. Tr. No. 1220 of 2022, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, read with under Section 376 AB of IPC submitted by the accused/appellant, namely, Sh. Lalfakzuala, through the Special Superintendent, Central Jail, Aizawl, sentencing him to undergo R.I. for twenty (20) years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, read with 376 AB of IPC by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl on 30.05.2024. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that an FIR was submitted at the Police Station on 09.06.2022 by one Lalrinpuii, W/o Lalmuankima, of Muthi, Aizawl, stating that her younger sister, X, aged twelve years (D.o.B.:19.10.2009), had been raped about five times at her residence in Muthi, Page No.# 3/19 from November 2018 to November 2019, when she was about nine years old, by her stepfather, Lalfakzuala, S/o Phirthanga. All Women Police Station Case No. 26/2022 dated 9.6.2022 under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 read with Section 376-AB of the Indian Penal Code was accordingly registered and investigated into. The place of occurrence was visited and a Sketch Map was drawn. A number of witnesses including the informant and alleged victim were examined by the Police in relation to the allegation. X was sent to the Civil Hospital, Aizawl, for a medical examination which showed that her hymen was perforated. She was also forwarded to the District Court where a pretrial statement she tendered was recorded by a Judicial Magistrate. Her birth certificate, which was seized, showed that she was born on 19.10.2009 and was still a child. The accused was arrested the very day the FIR was filed, i.e. 09.06.2022. The investigation revealed that there was a prima facie case against him Under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 read with Section 376-AB of the Indian Penal Code and he was accordingly sent up for trial. 4. Charges were framed against the accused, Lalfakzuala, on 12.09.2022 under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, read with Section 376-AB of the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty and Page No.# 4/19 claimed to be tried. 5. Eight of the nine witnesses listed for the prosecution appeared and deposed. PW-8, the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the alleged victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C./25 POCSO Act on 22.06.2022 in the course of the investigation, was dispensed with vide an order dated 14.11.2023 on the prosecution and defence being ad idem on it. After the prosecution closed their evidence, the accused was examined on 28.02.2024 under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Defence did not adduce any evidence. 6. Upon consideration of the evidence on record and after examining the accused and hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused. Hence this appeal. 7. At this stage, the evidence of the case may be discussed. 8. The informant, deposed at the trial as PW-1 on 17.11.2022. Her deposition in examination-in-chief is as follows: "I know the accused, Lalfakzuala. He is my stepfather. When the accused married my mother, I was already living separately with my husband. We are two brothers and four sisters. The victims, X and Y, are my younger sisters. After my mother married Lalfakzuala, they all lived in her house; the accused left his own house unoccupied. In February 2022, my grandmother, Lalbiakkimi (Seni), rang me and said that the accused had raped X and Y. She also said that Page No.# 5/19 she had filed an FIR, and that she had come to my mother's house in Muthi. However, before the FIR could be registered, my mother forgave the accused, and then left the house along with my siblings (to stay elsewhere. X was living with my grandmother at Zemabawk at the time. The accused signed an undertaking along with my mother in the presence of Village Council members promising that he would not bother them in the future, but he went against his promise and began to trouble my mother again, entering the house whenever he wanted. He refused to listen to anyone. The accused did not keep his word and I could not be with my mother and siblings all the time to keep them safe from him, so I lodged an FIR after consulting relatives. The FIR was lodged at the All Women Police Station. It was written down by the Police to my dictation and read out to me. I signed the FIR. The birth certificates of my sisters were taken from me and the Police returned the originals after making photostat copies. X is now staying with me at Muthi, and Y is at a Children's Home, CDP TCCH." 9. In cross-examination, PW-1 said that she did not remember the date her mother had married the accused, and that X and Y were her half-sisters. She deposed that she was not present at the time her sister, Y, and her stepfather, Lalfakzuala, fought with each other. She admitted that her knowledge of the incidents is from information she received from her maternal grandmother. 10. The alleged victim, X, deposed on 17.11.2022 as PW-2 at the trial as follows in examination-in-chief (paraphrased): "I know the accused. He is my stepfather. I do not remember when he married my mother as I was very young. I was born on 19.10.2009. I have two brothers and three sisters. Two of my sisters are married and the rest of us lived together with the accused in the same house. The accused had a house of his own but came to live with us after he married my mother. The accused had Page No.# 6/19 penetrative sexual intercourse with me five times during the period from November 2018 till sometime in 2019, at our house and in his residence which was unoccupied. The first two incidents happened in 2018 in the daytime. He took me with him to his unoccupied house on the pretext that he had to get something. He had penetrative sexual intercourse with me there in a bed. I used to sleep with my elder sister, Y; I used to sleep soundly. There was a door to our room, but it did not have a latch and could not be closed securely. I cannot remember the exact date and month, I came home from school to find that my mother had gone to her jhum and only the accused was in the house. He lifted me to their bed and had sex with me. After that he had sex with me twice again in our house when no one else was in. He said that my friends would look down on me and I wouldn’t have playmates if I spoke about the matter, so I didn't tell anyone. The accused was a habitual drinker and often fought with my mother when he got drunk. During the year 2022, I was in Class-7 and was staying with my grandmother, Lalbiakkimi, in Zemabawk, Aizawl. My mother phoned and asked me if the accused ever had sex with me, and I answered in the affirmative. My sister, Y, also spoke to me on the phone and said I should tell my mother what the accused had done to me. I told my grandmother about the phone calls with my mother and sister, and she asked Lalrinpuii to come to Aizawl. My elder sister, Lalrinpuii (Mary), was married and staying in their house. We decided to file an FIR, but my mother requested Y Page No.# 7/19 and me to forget the past and to forgive the accused. My mother left the house of the accused and went to live in our own house. The accused signed a bond in the presence of the Village Council members, promising not to repeat the offence, but he continued to disturb us, coming to our house and even trying to stay at night. We would send him home, and finally Lalrinpuii decided to file an FIR as she could not come to protect us from her own home all the time. We lodged the FIR at the Bawngkawn Police Station, from where we were referred to the All Women Police Station. My statement was recorded at the All Women Police Station by a lady in plain clothes in a separate room. I was sent to the Court at Aizawl where my statement was recorded by a Magistrate in her chamber. I was also sent for a medical examination to the Civil Hospital, Aizawl, and a doctor asked me about the history of the case. I now stay with my elder sister, Lalrinpuii, and Y stays in a Children's Home, CDP TCCH. The accused was released on bail and remarried my mother, so we are scared to be with her." She exhibited as Exbt. P-1, i.e., her statement, recorded by Ms. Bobita Lahmingmawii, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aizawl, under Section 164 Cr.P.C./25 POCSO Act on 22.6.2022, which as translated from the original Mizo version, reads as follows: "Q. How old are you? A: 12 years. Q. Do you go to school? Page No.# 8/19 A: Yes, I go to Class-7 in the Government school in our locality. Q. Who are you living with? A: I live with my mother, my older sister and my younger brother. Q. What is your father's name? Ai. Thangchhuana. He does not live with us. I think he is in Malaysia. Q. "Do you know Pu Lalfakzuala? A: Yes, I know him. He is my stepfather. He and my mother are now divorced. Q. Did your stepfather, Lalfakzuala, sexually assault you? A: Yes, he did. Q. How old were you when he assaulted you? A: I was about nine years old. Q. How many times did he assault you? A: About five times; till, till I was around ten years old. Q. How did he assault you? A: The first time was before he married my mother. As we did not have kitchen utensils in our home, he took me to his house to get some and he raped me in his bed. I cried because my private part started bleeding. He covered my mouth with his hand. He said, "If your mother and your friends know about this, they will look down on you; they will scold you. "I could not forget what happened, and remember it all clearly. I cried and my stepfather said to the others, "She fell down on the road while we are on our way back, " as the reason for my crying. Q. Do you still remember the other incidents of assault? A: I cannot remember how many times he assaulted me. One day, after he Page No.# 9/19 married my mother, she was in her jhum field and my older sister was not at home, I was about to take an afternoon nap. He carried me and raped me in their bed. As far as I can remember, he raped me about five times, and it all happened in their bed (his and my mother's bed). Q. When was the last time he assaulted you? A: I cannot recollect clearly, but I was about ten years and he raped me after school. He tried now and then even after I completed eleven years of age, but I had learnt how to extricate myself. I would scratch him on his face and shout out. He would cover my mouth with his hand, but he could not rape me again. Q. How did others come to know about the assaults? A: I once told my older sister Y about it. While I was at my grandmother's place at Zemabawk, my sister spoke about it. My mother phoned my grandmother, and I then told my grandmother everything. Q. Are your mother and Lalfakzuala still married? A: No, after my mother came to know about the assaults, she divorced him. Q. Are you scared of Lalfakzuala? A: Yes, I am very scared. While we were living together, I could never sleep well. He is strong and would beat my mother severely.” 11. In cross-examination, PW-2, the alleged victim, said that the informant, Lalrinpuii, was not staying with them when the incidents happened. Other than suggesting that the accused did not rape the victim, nothing was elicited to contradict the evidence of PW-2. 12. PW-4 deposed as to the age of the victim by producing the Birth Page No.# 10/19 Certificate of the victim, wherein her Date of Birth is shown as 19.10.2009, and there is no dispute that the victim was a minor during the time of the alleged occurrence. 13. The deposition of PW-6, in examination-in-chief was as follows: "I am posted at Civil Hospital, Aizawl, as a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology. On 9.6.2022, I received a requisition from Aizawl Police Station to conduct the medical examination of an alleged victim of sexual assault. The aleged victim, who was brought by Head Constable, Lallawmkimi, was produced before me. I conducted the medical examination assisted by a female attendant, Zathangpuii. It was found from examination that her hymen was not intact. I asked X about what had happened and she told me that her stepfather had penile sexual intercourse with her more than a couple of times when she was about ten years old." PW-6 stated in cross-examination, "The tear of the hymen was old and it could have happened even a year earlier. It is denied that X did not tell me that her stepfather had sexual intercourse with her." 14. PW-7 is the Doctor, who examined the accused and he deposed that the accused was physically and mentally healthy and would be able to perform Page No.# 11/19 sexual activity. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are various discrepancies in the deposition of the victim before the Court vis-a-vis her statement before the Magistrate recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel sought to dissect each and every part of the aforesaid previous statement of the victim but fairly admitted that the victim during her cross- examination was never confronted with her alleged omissions and contradictions in her previous statement, either before the police and or before the Magistrate. 16. The law with regard to the manner in which a witness is to be confronted with regard to her previous statements is laid down in Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 162 Cr.P.C also mandates that when any witness is confronted for the prosecution at the trial, whose statement has been reduced into writing, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act which provides as follows: “145. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.-A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without Page No.# 12/19 such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.” 17. However, no such procedure was adopted by the defence to contradict the witness so as to question her credibility and therefore, the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to any such discrepancies in her previous statements are of no avail. 18. Furthermore, upon a perusal of the said statement of the victim before the Magistrate, which has been reproduced herein before, there does not appear to be any such material omission or contradiction which would have otherwise led the Court to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix. Therefore, we do not find any force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that there is a huge delay of about 4 years in submitting the FIR in this case. It is submitted that the alleged occurrence is of the year 2018 to 2019, but the FIR has only been lodged in the year 2022. It is submitted that the motive for lodging the Page No.# 13/19 FIR was not that the occurrence as alleged has taken place, but because the accused/appellant used to harass the informant. In this regard, learned counsel has referred to the evidence of PW-1, wherein she stated that the accused had signed an agreement with the mother of the victim, in the presence of Village Council members and witnesses, that he will not visit her mother and her siblings and also that he will not disturb them in any manner in future. But the accused went against the agreement and started disturbing her mother by entering their house anytime he wanted. This according to the learned counsel for the appellant was the motivation for lodging an FIR, making certain false allegations against the accused/appellant and considering the delay, the prosecution's case stands on very weak foundations. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manoj Kumar Sharma and Other Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 1, wherein it was held as follows: “30. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. In our opinion, such extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the Page No.# 14/19 truthfulness of allegations made by Respondent 2 herein against the appellants, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and vague allegations, Respondent 2 herein has tried to rope the appellants in criminal proceedings. We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the FIR deserves to be quashed.” 20. Per contra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has submitted that the delay has already been sufficiently explained in the FIR as well as by the witnesses as would be evident from the evidence of the informant as well as the victim. 21. A perusal of the FIR would show that the informant/PW-1 had stated that she had lodged the FIR lately as her younger sister did not mention the matter to her earlier. In her evidence, the PW-1 had stated that in the month of February, her grandmother rang her up and informed her about the rape committed by the accused upon her two younger siblings and her grandmother further informed her that she lodged an FIR, but before the FIR was registered, her mother (wife of the accused), forgave the accused and left the house with Page No.# 15/19 her siblings. At that time, the victim of the present case was staying with her grandmother at Zemabawk. 22. Further, PW-1 deposed that the accused/appellant had signed an agreement with her mother that he will not visit her and her daughters or disturb them in any manner, but he went against the said agreement and started disturbing her mother by entering their house at any time. Since PW- 1/informant could not visit her mother and siblings often and defend them against the accused, she decided to lodge an FIR after consulting her relatives. Similarly, the victim herself in her deposition as PW-2 had stated that she did not inform the incident to anyone because everytime, the accused reminded her that if she did so, people will make fun of her and nobody will play with her or come close to her. 23. It appears that from her evidence that it was only on being questioned by her mother that she revealed about the incident and that too at the urging of her sister. This goes to show that the victim, who was a very young child of about nine years at the time of the incident, was under fear and a great deal of inhibition, which prevented her from disclosing the matter, even to her own mother. The victim further deposed that she informed her grandmother about Page No.# 16/19 the incident after the conversation between her and her mother and sister, whereafter her grandmother talked to her elder sister/informant and asked her to come over to Aizawl, so that they can take action against the accused, and after discussion, they decided to lodge an FIR. But by that time, her mother had cooled down, and she was not in favour of lodging an FIR against the accused and requested the victim and her sister to forget the past and to forgive the accused. Thereafter, her mother left the house of the accused to live in her own house. And though the victim's elder sister/informant wanted to lodge an FIR instantly, due to their mother's request, they did not do so and instead, an agreement was made in front of the Village Council members and it was only after the accused continued with his behavior, that the informant decided to lodge the FIR as she could not protect the victim any longer. 24. From the above, it is crystal clear that from the point of view of the informant, there was no delay, inasmuch as she was not told about the incident earlier and as far as the victim is concerned, she has clearly explained the circumstances which restrained her from firstly disclosing the incident to her mother and other family members and secondly, even after such disclosure, why some delay was occasioned in lodging the FIR, i.e., because of the request of their own mother to refrain from doing so, and also because of the subsequent Page No.# 17/19 agreement before the Village Council members adverted to earlier. 25. Therefore, we are of the view that the delay in lodging the FIR has been sufficiently explained in the present case. 26. In the case of Tulshidas Kanolkar Vs. State of Goa, reported in (2003) SCC 590, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows: “5. We shall first deal with the question of delay. The unusual (circumstances satisfactorily explained the delay in lodging of the first information report. In any event, delay per se is not a mitigating circumstance for the accused when accusations of rape are involved. Delay in lodging the first information report cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for discarding the prosecution case and doubting its authenticity. It only puts the court on guard to search for and consider if any explanation has been offered for the delay. Once it is offered, the court is to only see whether it is satisfactory or not. In case if the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment or exaggeration in the prosecution version on account of such delay, it is a relevant factor. On the other hand, satisfactory explanation of the delay is weighty enough to reject the plea of false implication or vulnerability of the prosecution case. As the factual scenario shows, the victim was totally unaware of the catastrophe which had befallen her. That being so, the mere Page No.# 18/19 delay in lodging of the first information report does not in any way render the prosecution version brittle.” 27. The above being said, as already discussed earlier, the testimony of the victim is corroborated in material particulars by her previous statement before the Magistrate and no contradiction has been brought out by the defence vis-a- vis the said statement or even otherwise. And therefore, the victim can be regarded as a wholly reliable witness, whose testimony can be acted upon without corroboration. 28. In Ganesan Vs. State, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 573, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the sole testimony of the victim was reliable and trustworthy, requiring no corroboration and being sufficient to sustain a conviction of the accused. 29. As rightly noted by the learned Trial Court, the evidence on record indicated that the mother of the victim was disinclined to file criminal charges against her husband. She also did not depose on oath and instead, she asked the victim and her sister to forget and forgive the accused and as a young girl, the victim would not have been blind to the affection her mother had for the accused. Therefore, she must have been aware of the damage that the Page No.# 19/19 knowledge of his crimes would cost her. It was also rightly held that it is inconceivable that the child would have leveled an allegation which in turn would hurt her mother gravely, unless it was true. 30. Therefore, we find no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the victim, which is also corroborated by her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. 31. In view of the above discussion, we find the appeal to be devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. 32. Send back the TCR. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant