Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10003 (GAU)

Lalnunzawma Maubawk, Aizawl v. State of Mizoram

2026-02-13

Mridul Kumar Kalita

body2026
JUDGMENT & ORDER : MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J. 1) Heard Mr. Laltanpuia, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for theState respondents. 2) This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) has been filed by the appellant Lalnunzawma, impugning the Judgment dated 13.03.2024 as well as sentencing order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Aizawl, Mizoram in Sessions Case No. 34/2024 corresponding to All Women P.S. Case No. 6/2023, whereby, the appellant was convicted under Section 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten (10) years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for three (3) months. 3) The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that on 19.02.2023, the victim girl (herein after referred to as ‘X’ to protect the identity of the victim) had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of All Women Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on 18.02.2023 between 2 PM to 3 PM, her friend Lalnunzawma(present appellant) had raped her in their jhum hut at Reiek road. It was also alleged in the FIR that she suffers injuries on her knee, elbow and arm. On receipt of the said FIR, All Women Police Station Case No. 6/2023 was registered under Section 376 (1)/323 of the IPC and investigation was initiated. During the course of the investigation, the appellant was arrested. He faced the trial while remaining behind the bars. 4) On 05.06.2023, the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Aizawl, after considering the materials available on record as well as after hearing both the sides, framed charges under Section 376 (1) IPC as well as Section 323 of the said Code against the appellant. When the said charges were read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution side had examined nine (9) prosecution witnesses including the victim ‘X’, who was examined as PW-1. 5) The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, during which he admitted of having sex with the victim girl but he stated that he did not rape her. He also pleaded his innocence. The prosecution side had examined nine (9) prosecution witnesses including the victim ‘X’, who was examined as PW-1. 5) The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, during which he admitted of having sex with the victim girl but he stated that he did not rape her. He also pleaded his innocence. He also adduced evidence of three (3) defence witnesses in support of his defence, including himself as DW-1. Ultimately, by the Judgment & Order, which has been impugned in this appeal, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the manner as discussed in paragraph No. 2 of this judgment. 6) Before considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, let us go through the evidence of the prosecution as well as the defence witnesses, which is available on record. 7) The PW-1, who is the victim girl (X), has deposed that she was a student of B.A course at J. Thankima College. She has deposed that from 21.01.2023, she got acquainted with the appellant on facebook and thereafter, exchanged their phone number and started chatting through WhatsApp. She had deposed that the appellant used to asked her to visit Reiek Tlang and his farm house, which is located on the way to Reiek Tlang. Accordingly, on 18.02.2023, they planned to go to Reiek Tlang and she waited for him near Presbyterian Church, Republic Veng, Aizawl. She has further deposed that at around 10 – 11 AM, the appellant picked her up from there and they proceeded towards Reiek Tlang on the scooty of the appellant, which was dark blue in colour. She has further deposed that as Reiek Tlang was quite far, she asked the appellant to go to the farm house instead of Reiek Tlang. Accordingly, they proceeded towards their farm house.She has further deposed that at the farm house, he took of his mask and he appeared different from his facebook profile and his WhatsApp D.P. She deposed that she was scared and frightened of him as he appeared to be a different person. She further deposed that the appellant took out a beer from his bag and started to drink and also offered the beer to her. However, she only took one sip and could not sip any further as she has never had beer before. She further deposed that the appellant took out a beer from his bag and started to drink and also offered the beer to her. However, she only took one sip and could not sip any further as she has never had beer before. 8) The PW-1 has further deposed that thereafter, the appellant started to kiss her and started touching her breast and tried to have sex with her by forcing her down on the floor and removing her clothes. On this, the victim girl begged him not to force her to have sex with him as she was still a virgin. However, the appellant continued to sexually assault her. The PW-1 has further deposed that she suddenly ran out from the farm house and grabbed her underwear and shorts. However, she fell down while running and injured her elbow, knee and forearm and the appellant came running after her and got hold of her and carried her on his back inside the said farm house. Thereafter, he pinned her down on the floor and forcibly removed her skirt and put his arm on her throat. He also took one log of firewood and tried to hit her on her head. When she pleaded not to hit her, he stopped, but continued to sexually assault her. PW-1 has further deposed that she fought back with all her might and on this, the appellant got furious and he took one brick, which was lying nearby and tried to hit her on her head. When she pleaded him again not to hit her thereafter, she suddenly grabbed her balls and pull it as hard as she could do, which made him infuriated and he grab a readymade door made of wood and he pinned her down on the floor with it and put one leg on top of the said door so that she could not move. Thereafter, he took off the said door and continued to threaten her and strangled her with both of his hands and started to rape her by putting his penis inside her vagina. The PW-1 has further deposed that she was crying while the appellant was raping her. She also raised hue and cry. After committing rape, he took her home. Thereafter, he took off the said door and continued to threaten her and strangled her with both of his hands and started to rape her by putting his penis inside her vagina. The PW-1 has further deposed that she was crying while the appellant was raping her. She also raised hue and cry. After committing rape, he took her home. 9) The PW-1 has further deposed that on the next day, she informed her friends namely, Ruthi R. Lalhmangaihsangi and Lalthansanga,about the incident,over mobile phone and on the same day, she accompanied them to the police station where she had lodged the FIR against the appellant. She has further deposed that before she lodged the FIR against the appellant, she continued to text the appellant on his mobile phone to prevent him from absconding. She further deposed that in the police station, she came to know that the real name of the appellant is Lalnunzawma and not Mala Malsawma as told to her by the appellant. She has also deposed that the police had seized her mobile phone as well as her undergarments and piece of firewood and brick from the place of occurrence. She also deposed that her statement was recorded by a Judicial Magistrate on 02.03.2023 and she was also medically examined. She exhibited the seizure memo of her mobile phone, underwear, authenticated certificate of whatsapp conversation, one firewood and one brick, her judicial statement, blood sample authentication form for DNA profiling, the FIR as well as her underwear, firewood and brick. 10) During her cross-examination, she has deposed that she and the appellant had love relationship. She also deposed that she drank beer on the day of the incident. She also deposed that the bruise on her arm and knee were because of the fact that she fell down. She also deposed that she was sexually assaulted for about 2 to 3 hours. She also deposed that she chatted as lovers on the phone even after the night of the incident. 11) The PW-2 namely, Ruthi R. Lalhmangaihsangi has deposed that on 19.02.2023 at around 8:28 AM, she received a text from the victim (X) whereby, it was informed that she has been sexually assaulted by the appellant, who tried to kill her with a brick and strangled her. She also deposed that the victim (X) also sent pictures of the bruise arm and knee on WhatsApp. She also deposed that the victim (X) also sent pictures of the bruise arm and knee on WhatsApp. She also deposed that on 19.02.2023, the police seized the victim lace underwear and she signed on the seizure list as a seizure witness. During cross-examination, she has deposed that she cannot say whether the bruise on the arm and knee of the victim was because of the sexual assault committed on her. 12) The PW-3 Mr. Lalthansanga had deposed that on 19.02.2023 at around 7:43 AM, he received a text message from the victim girl whereby, he was informed that she has been sexually assaulted by one person, who she used to chat on social media. It was also deposed that he was informed that the appellant tried to kill her with a brick, strangled her and had sexually assaulted her. He also deposed that he was also a seizure witness of the seizure of a lace underwear of the victim girl by the police. He also deposed that the victim girl also sent pictures of her bruised elbow and knee on WhatsApp. He was cross-examined by the defence side, however, his testimony during his examination-in-chief remained intact and could not be diminished. 13) The PW-4 Dr. B. Lalduhawma deposed that on 19.02.2023, on a requisition by him from All Women Police Station, he conducted a medical examination of the rape victim (X), who was accompanied by one female constable. He deposed that during examination, the said victim girl was found mentally and physically healthy. He found marks of violence on her body. Bruise on left knee, bruise on left elbow, bruise on right forearm, on genital examination of her hymen, he found fresh fourchette laceration and fresh hymenal tear. He also deposed that the victim girl testified before him that she was sexually assaulted by her boyfriend at his farm house at the outskirt of Aizawl against her will. He also deposed that the appellant had penile penetration in her vagina without the use of protection (condoms). He exhibited the medical report as Ext.P2. During cross-examination of thePW-4, his testimony during examination-in-chief remained intact. 14) The PW-5, Dr. LalthankimiRalte had deposed that on 19.02.2025 at around 1:25 PM, the appellant Lalnunzawma was brought for medical examination as he was accused of sexually molesting a girl know to him at Tlawn road. He exhibited the medical report as Ext.P2. During cross-examination of thePW-4, his testimony during examination-in-chief remained intact. 14) The PW-5, Dr. LalthankimiRalte had deposed that on 19.02.2025 at around 1:25 PM, the appellant Lalnunzawma was brought for medical examination as he was accused of sexually molesting a girl know to him at Tlawn road. She conducted general examination of the appellant and found him physically and mentally stable at the time of examination. His genital organs were fully developed. During her cross-examination, she has deposed that the appellant during medical examination had stated that he had sexual intercourse with the victim girl. 15) The PW-6 Mr. ChanchinlianaSailo is a seizure witness of the seizure of a Redmi A6 mobile phone from the victim girl. The PW-7 namely, Lallawmkimi, who is also a seizure witness of the mobile phone from the victim girl.Their testimonies remained intact during their cross examination. 16) The PW-9, Lalchhanzova, who is an Assistant Director of Forensic Laboratory, Aizawl has deposed that on 21.02.2023, he received requisition from the SDPO, Aizawl South for examination of two (2) biological exhibits for the presence of semen in connection with All Women Police Station Case No. 6/2023. The exhibits were one underwear (lace black and grey) of the victim girl, with suspected seminal stain, marked as Ext.A and a vaginal smear of the victim with suspected seminal stain, marked as Ext.B. He deposed that on examination of two exhibits, presence of human semen was found in Ext.A whereas, no such semen was detected in Ext.B. He has further deposed that on 29.03.2023, he received another requisition from the SDPO, Aizawl South requesting comparison of exhibits sent earlier with two more exhibits, namely, liquid blood sample of the victim (Ext.C), liquid blood sample of the appellant (Ext.D). After comparison of the exhibits, he found the following: - (1) Complete female genetic profiles were generated from Ext.A (female fraction) and Ext.C. (2) Complete male genetic profiles were generated from Ext.A (male fraction) and Ext.D. 17) The PW-10 namely, Vanhmingthangi, S.I of Police had deposed that on 19.02.2023, a written FIR was submitted before the All Women Police Station by the victim (X), inter alia, stating that she was raped by the appellant at their jhum hut located at Reiek road. After receipt of the FIR, All Women Police Station Case No. 6/2023 was registered under Section 376 (1)/323 of the IPC . After receipt of the FIR, All Women Police Station Case No. 6/2023 was registered under Section 376 (1)/323 of the IPC . She has further deposed that during the investigation, she examined the complainant and other witnesses and recorded their statements. She further deposed that she has also recorded the statement of the appellant and got the appellant as well as the victim medically examined. She also deposed that she seized the underwear of the victim girl and her mobile phone and also collected the authenticated certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. During cross-examination, she deposed that there is no independent witness of the incident. She also deposed that during investigation, she found that the victim and the accused were in a relationship. 18) The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., during which, he admitted of having sex with the victim girl but he stated that he did not commit rape on her but their sexual intercourse was consensual in nature. He also pleaded his innocence. He adduced evidence of three (3) defence witnesses including himself. 19) The appellant, while deposing as DW-1, has stated that he came to be acquainted with the victim girl through Facebook and thereafter, they started chatting with each other on WhatsApp. He also deposed that on the day of the alleged incident, they planned to visit Reiek Tlang. However, before reaching Reiek Tlang, the victim asked him to take her to the jhum hut which is located near Tlawng river along Reiek road. He deposed that before they reach their jhum hut, she fell on the ground and sustained minor injuries on her knee and forearm. He has further deposed that after they reach the place, the victim girl asked him to take out a beer can and both started drinking the beer. Thereafter, they had sexual intercourse with the consent of the victim girl and her free will. He has also deposed that during the said incident, some people were near their jhum hut. However, they do not hear any sound or scream of a woman. He further deposed that after the incident, they went home together and, in the evening, the victim rang her while he was in a hospital. He has also deposed that during the said incident, some people were near their jhum hut. However, they do not hear any sound or scream of a woman. He further deposed that after the incident, they went home together and, in the evening, the victim rang her while he was in a hospital. He deposed that when he told her that he was busy, she asked him to call her back when he is free, but when he forgot to do so, she became enraged and said that he was having an affair with some other girl. During cross-examination, the appellant has deposed that he does not know about the definition of rape. However, he is of the opinion that sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent amounts to rape. He also deposed that in his Facebook account, he mentioned his name as Malamalsawma. 20) The DW-2 Lianmawii, who is the sister of the appellant has deposed that on the day of the incident, she along with her friend went to the farm to work and pick vegetables where they saw the appellant and the victim girl coming towards the jhum hut. She further deposed that she had been there for the whole day and she heard no sound of any panic woman scream and cry. She further deposed that in the evening, she saw both of them coming back holding their hands from their jhum hut. During cross-examination, she has deposed that the appellant is her younger brother. She also deposed that she does not know about the injury sustained by the victim girl on that day. She denied that she has been deposing falsely. 21) The DW-3 Lalzawngliana has deposed that the victim and the appellant frequently visited their home and they spent time together and he knew the victim and the appellant were in a relationship and on one occasion, he also accompanied the appellant when he went to pick the victim from her college. During cross-examination, the DW-3 deposed that he does not know about the name of the victim girl. 22) Mr. Laltanpuia, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Trial Court had erred in convicting the appellant under Section 376 (1) of the IPC by relying on the sole testimony of the victim girl. During cross-examination, the DW-3 deposed that he does not know about the name of the victim girl. 22) Mr. Laltanpuia, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Trial Court had erred in convicting the appellant under Section 376 (1) of the IPC by relying on the sole testimony of the victim girl. He submits that the appellant has admitted of having sex with the victim girl on the date of alleged incident. However, the same was consensual. He further submits that the Trial Court failed to take into consideration the evidence of consensual sex between the appellant as well as the victim girl. He submits that the testimony of the victim girl has inherent contradictions, inasmuch as, she has taken different stands about the incident in the FIR filed by her as well as in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C as well as while deposing before the Trial Court as PW-1. 23) The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the narration of facts regarding the cause of injuries sustained by the victim girl was different at different point of time. He submits that whereas in the FIR, she has stated that she sustained injuries on her knee, elbow and arm while defending herself from the appellant. However, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C as well as while deposing before the Trial Court as PW-1, she has stated that she sustained injuries when she fell down while running and got injured. 24) The learned counsel for the appellantfurther submits that apart from the said inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim girl, during cross-examination, the victim girl had stated that even after the incident, she chatted with the appellant as lovers with the appellant on phone, to which he submits that the said conduct falsified the allegation of forcible sex on the victim on the date of the incident. He further submits that though in her testimony as PW-1, the victim girl has deposed that the appellant committed forcible sex for 2 – 3 hours whereas, in the FIR, she stated that the same was only for 1 hour within 2 PM to 3 PM. He further submits that though in her testimony as PW-1, the victim girl has deposed that the appellant committed forcible sex for 2 – 3 hours whereas, in the FIR, she stated that the same was only for 1 hour within 2 PM to 3 PM. He also submits that though the victim girl has deposed before the Trial Court that she was assaulted by a wooden framed door by the appellant when with the help of the said wooden door, she was pinned down on the ground. However, he submits that the Medical Injury Report shows that she has not sustained any injuries on other part of body except bruise on her arm and knee, which was sustained while she fell down. 25) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the medical evidence does not corroborate the testimony of the victim girl. He further submits that because of the aforementioned inconsistency, the victim girl cannot be regarded as a witness of sterling nature and as such, the Trial Court had erred in treating her to be trustworthy and arriving at the guilt of the accused solely on the basis of her testimony alone. 26) He further submits that the evidence of PW-2, who is stated to be the friend of the victim girl, is entirely hearsay in nature and same cannot be relied upon to arrive at finding of the guilt. He submits that PW-3 and PW-4 are post-occurrence witnesses who have not seen the incident themselves. He further submits that the Trial Court has also not taken into consideration the uncontroverted testimony of the defence witnesses. He submits that the appellant while deposing as DW-1 has categorically stated that the sexual intercourse between him and the victim girl was consensual and no force was applied. He submits that the said testimony remains uncontroverted. However, the Trial Court has erred in not taking into consideration the uncontroverted evidence of the defence witnesses. He further submits that the victim girl had filed the FIR as she was enraged with the conduct of the appellant in not calling her back when she rang him. He submits that the said testimony remains uncontroverted. However, the Trial Court has erred in not taking into consideration the uncontroverted evidence of the defence witnesses. He further submits that the victim girl had filed the FIR as she was enraged with the conduct of the appellant in not calling her back when she rang him. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the conviction may be based on an uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix in a rape case, however, for this, the evidence of the prosecutrix shall have to be of a sterling quality, which is not a case in the instant case. In support of his submission, he has cited the following rulings of the Apex Court: - (1) Rai Sandeep alias Deepu Vs. State(NCT of Delhi), reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 and (2) Raifuddin Ali Vs. State of Assam , reported in 2021 (1) GLT 106. 27) The learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt in this case and accordingly prays for setting aside the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant and prays for setting the accused at liberty. 28) On the other hand, Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the Trial Court has arrived at the conclusion of guilt of the appellant under Section 376 (1) of the IPC after proper appreciation of evidence on record and accordingly, the impugned judgment should not be interfered with by this Court in this appeal. 29) The learned Public Prosecutor submits that a conviction in a case involving offence under Section 376 of IPC can be based on testimony of sole prosecutrix and this proposition of law has already been settled by the Apex Court in various judgments. She submits that the victim ‘X’ has narrated consistent facts in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C as well as before the Trial Court while deposing as PW-1. She submits that no contradiction could be brought about by the defence side in the testimony of the victim girl. She submits that the medical evidence corroborates the testimony of the victim girl as she sustained injuries on her body as well as in her private parts. She submits that no contradiction could be brought about by the defence side in the testimony of the victim girl. She submits that the medical evidence corroborates the testimony of the victim girl as she sustained injuries on her body as well as in her private parts. She further submits that the fact that in the FIR, she stated that she sustained injuries on her knee, elbow and arm while defending herself cannot be regarded as a contradictory statement when she deposed during trial as PW-1 that she sustained such injuries when she fell down while running. She submits that she ran out of the farm house only to defend herself against the present appellant when he sexually assaulted her and as such, the statement cannot be regarded as contradictory but it has to be treated as corroborative statement. 30) The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the victim girl has vividly described the act of sexual assault committed by the appellant against her on the date of the incident. She also submits that the fact that the victim girl was attacked by a wooden framed door and the appellant had strangulated her on throat does not necessarily require that she would sustain an injury due to such acts and therefore, she submits that the injuries apart from those, which are mentioned in the Injury Report were not detected. She further submits that the fact that the victim girl got acquainted with the appellant on social media is an admitted fact. However, the defence side is unable to show any enmity between the victim and the appellant, which could have caused the victim girl to file a false FIR against the appellant. She submits that the victim girl, who is a self- respectingperson, would not have come forward to file a false FIR and make a statement against her own moral by getting involved in a case of rape on her. She submits that no self-respecting woman would have done that. She submits that the Trial Court after considering the entire evidence on record treated the prosecutrix to be a trust worthy witness and based its findings of guilt of the appellant on such evidence of the prosecutrix. Hence, she submits that the said finding of the Trial Court should not be disturbed and this appeal may be dismissed. She submits that the Trial Court after considering the entire evidence on record treated the prosecutrix to be a trust worthy witness and based its findings of guilt of the appellant on such evidence of the prosecutrix. Hence, she submits that the said finding of the Trial Court should not be disturbed and this appeal may be dismissed. In support of her submission, she has cited the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Aslam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2014) 13 SCC 350 . 31) I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the sides and I have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsels for both the sides in support of their respective submissions. 32) In the instant case, it appears that the sole eyewitness of the incident was the victim herself, which is obvious also as the offence of rape is not normally committed in presence of witnesses and the best evidence is the evidence of the prosecutrix as well as other corroborative evidence like medical evidence etc. In the instant case, the factum of sexual intercourse is even not denied by the appellant. The medical examination report of the victim girl as well as the testimony of the doctor, who examined the victim girl also proves the fact that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse. The question is whether such sexual intercourse was consensual or without the consent of the victim. 33) The victim has in her testimony vividly described the incident which occurred on the day of alleged offence, which has been discussed in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment. On considering the testimony of the victim girl, it clearly appears that on the date of the alleged incident, the appellant tried to forcefully had sex with the victim girl and in order to save herself, she tried her best including running away from him but she fell down and sustained injuries. Ultimately, the appellant was able to commit penetrative sexual assault on her. Ultimately, the appellant was able to commit penetrative sexual assault on her. 34) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in the FIR, the victim had stated that she sustained injuries while defending herself from the appellant whereas, in the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, 1973 as well as in her testimony, while deposing before the Court as PW-1, the victim has stated that she sustained injuries while running way, in the considered opinion of this Court are not contradictory, rather the same is corroborative. If we go through the testimony of the victim girl as PW-1, she has categorically stated that when the appellant was committing sexual assault on her, she ran out from the farm house and while running out, she fell down and sustained injuries. However, the appellant ran after her and grabbed her again. This act of running away by the victim girl is an act of defending herself from the appellant during the alleged incident. Hence, her stating in the FIR that she sustained injury while defending herself against the appellant is in no way can be regarded as contradictory to what she has deposed as PW-1 before the Trial Court. 35) Regarding the contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the FIR, she has stated that she was subjected to physical sexual assault for one hour, whereas, in her deposition during her cross-examination as PW-1, she has deposed that she was subjected to sexual intercourse for two to three hours can also not be regarded as contradictory, as the defence side while cross-examining the victim girl did not controverted herby referring to the statement made by her in the FIR. Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872, 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 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. In the instant case, the statement made in the FIR by the victim girl was not brought to her notice during her cross-examination, hence, same cannot be use for the purpose of contradicting her testimony given by her as PW-1. 36) Further, though the PW- 2 & 3 are post-occurrence witnesses and have not themselves seen the alleged incident, however, they are witnesses to the fact that the matter was reported to them by the victim girl through WhatsApp and such a conduct of the victim girl appears to be a normal conduct of a woman in distress under such circumstances. 37) The testimony of the victim girl to the effect that even after the incident, she kept chatting with the appellant to prevent him from escaping in the event of lodging of FIR by her is also not an abnormal conduct of a victim under such circumstances and may not be any basis to be a reason to disbelief her testimony. 38) The fact that the victim sustained injuries when she fell down while she was trying to run away from the appellant during the incident of sexual assault on her has been corroborated by the medical evidence, which found injuries on the person of the victim girl as stated by her in her testimony. When the act of sexual intercourse is admitted by the appellant also the main question in this case is as to whether it was consensual or not and in such a case, the evidence of the victim girl to the effect that no consent was there from her for the said sexual intercourse as well as the evidence indicating to the fact that she had also sustained injuries while running away from the appellant during the sexual assault lends credibility to her testimony. 39) Otherwise also, as held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh &Ors. reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 that the Court must, whileevaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her, are relevant in this case. Gurmit Singh &Ors. reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 that the Court must, whileevaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her, are relevant in this case. The observation of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case that in cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. 40) Regarding the reliability of the defence witness adduced by the defence side, the evidence of theDW-3 can be discarded at the outset as it is not a case of the appellant or the victim that they ever met each other, in person, prior to the date of the alleged incident. Their case is that they got acquainted to each other and were chatting over social media only and it is on the day of the alleged incident that they physically met each other.Whereas, DW-3 has stated that the victim and the appellant frequently visited their home and spent time together which makes his testimony unreliable. 41) As regards the testimony of the DW-2 is concerned, she is an interested witness being the elder sister of the appellant. Further, she has deposed that on the day of the alleged incident, she came to the farm house along with one of her friends. However, the said friend was not examined as a witness. If she had been examined, she would have been more reliable than the DW-2, as the fact that the DW-2 is the elder sister of the appellant, makes her testimony as the evidence of an interested witness. More so, when though she has stated that she has seen the victim and the appellant even in the evening while coming back, she could not see anything about the injuries sustained by the victim girl, which itself makes her testimony unreliable. More so, when though she has stated that she has seen the victim and the appellant even in the evening while coming back, she could not see anything about the injuries sustained by the victim girl, which itself makes her testimony unreliable. 42) As regards that testimony of the DW-1 is concerned, though he had deposed that the victim sustained minor injuries on her knee and forearm before reaching the jhum hut, however, he has not discussed any detail as to how she fell down and what he did after he found that the victim sustained injuries on her knee, arm and elbow. The explanation of injury sustained by the victim girl as deposed by her during her examination under PW-1 appears to be more reliable. If the testimony of DW-1 is accepted, there cannot be any justifiable reason for the victim to lodge a false case against the appellant. The plea of the appellant that as the appellant was enraged due to him not calling her over phone made her file a false case is unacceptable as no girl will take such a drastic step only because of the fact that her boyfriend forgot to call her back over mobile phone. The story narrated by the appellant appears to be a concocted story and by relying on the same, the victim’s testimony which appears to be true narration of fact cannot be discarded totally. 43) In view of above discussions, this court is of considered view that the Trial Court has rightly considered the evidence on record while coming to the finding of guilt of the appellant and this Court sees no reason to interfere with same. 44) For the discussion made in the foregoing paragraph and reasons stated herein before, this Court finds that the instant appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. 45) Send back the records of the trial court along with a copy of this judgment to the trial court.