Page No.# 1/20

GAHC030001492025

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : CRL.A(J)/10/2025

Sh. K. Lalmuankima

S/o K. Vanthuama

R/o Farkawn

Champhai District

VERSUS

The State of Mizoram and Anr.

Aizawl2:Sh. T. Lalnuntluang

B E F O R E

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

For the Appellant : Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, Amicus Curiae

For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Vanneihsiami, Addl. PP, Mizoram for R-1.

: Mrs. Emily L. Chhangte, Legal Aid Counsel for R-2.

Date on which judgment is reserved: 25.03.2026

Date of pronouncement of judgment: 27.03.2026

Whether the pronouncement is of the: N/A

operative part of the judgment ?

Whether the full judgment has been: Yes

pronounced?

Page No.# 2/20

J UDGMENT & O RDER (CAV)

((Michael Zothankhuma, J)

Heard Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also

heard Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Mrs.

Emily L. Chhangte, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2.This is an appeal against the impugned Judgment & Order passed by the

Presiding Officer/Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Champhai in FTSC (CPI)

POCSO 46/2022, arising out of Criminal Trial No. 178/2022, by which the

appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced

to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 (twenty) years with a fine of Rs.

5,000/-, i/d Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month.

3.The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the case of the victim (10 years

old) that she had been raped by the appellant, who was a full grown man

appears to be doubtful, in view of the fact that the victim had stated that she

did not experience pain during or after the incident of rape. Further, the victim

stated in her cross-examination that there was no bleeding in her private parts

after the incident of rape had occurred.

Page No.# 3/20

4.The learned Amicus Curiae further submits that the evidence of the male

Doctor, who is PW-4, is to the effect that the hymen of the victim was

ruptured/not intact. She submits that the examination of the victim girl should

have been done by a lady Doctor, in terms of Section 27(2) of the POCSO Act,

2012 and not by a male Doctor. As such, there was violation of Section 27(2) of

the POCSO Act, 2012 due to examination of the victim by a male Doctor.

5.The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that there is inconsistency in the

statement made by the victim under Section 164 Cr.PC and in her testimony

before the learned Trial Court. In her testimony before the learned Trial Court,

the victim had stated that when she resisted the attempt by the appellant to

rape her, the appellant threatened her by saying that ‘If you shout, I will pull

your hair’. However, no such statement had been made by the victim in her 164

Cr.PC statement. Thus, as the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.PC did

not fully corroborate the testimony of the victim during trial, conviction could

not have been made solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim, who was

not a sterling witness. In this respect, she has relied upon the Judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu Vs. State (NCT of

Delhi), reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21, wherein it has been held that when a

witness evidence does not show that she is a sterling witness, the evidence of

Page No.# 4/20

the victim would have to be corroborated by other evidence.

6.The learned Amicus Curiae submits that there was no injury on the private

parts of the victim, even though she had alleged that she had been raped by

the appellant who was the full grown man. She submits that it was unbelievable

that a child of ten years would not have injury in her private parts, if she had

been raped by a full grown man. As the evidence did not prove that the victim

had been raped by the appellant, the impugned Judgment & Order should be

set aside.

7.Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand

submits that there is no inconsistency in the evidence of the witness, vis-à-vis

her statement made under Section 164 Cr.PC. In fact, the evidence of the victim

to the effect that she and the appellant had been caught by the wife of the

appellant in the ground floor of the appellant’s house has been corroborated by

the evidence of the wife of the appellant, who is Defence Witness-3 (DW-3).

The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the statement made by the

victim under Section 164 Cr.PC also corroborates the testimony of the victim and

just because the victim did not state the threat given to her by the appellant in

her 164 Cr.PC statement did not mean that the evidence of the victim was not

Page No.# 5/20

reliable.

8.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submits that there is no

enmity between the family of the victim and the appellant, to create a doubt

that the case against the appellant was a fabricated case. Further, there is no

cross-examination of the victim or any other Prosecution Witnesses, to the

effect that the child had been tutored to make the allegation of rape against the

appellant.

9.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that absence of injury in the

private parts of victim does not prove that rape had not been committed upon

the victim child and in this respect, she has relied upon the case of Lok Mal

Alias Loku Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 470,

wherein it had been held at paragraph No. 13 as follows:-

“13. Merely because in the medical evidence, there are no major injury

marks, this cannot be a reason to discard the otherwise reliable evidence of

the prosecutrix. It is not necessary that in each and every case where rape

is alleged there has to be injury to the private parts of the victim and it

depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. We reiterate

that absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim is not always fatal

to the case of the prosecution. According to the version of the prosecutrix,

the accused overpowered her and pushed her to bed in spite of her

Page No.# 6/20

resistance and gagged her mouth using a piece of cloth. Thus, considering

this very aspect, it is possible that there were no major injury marks.”

10.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submits that no prejudice has

been caused to appellant only because the victim had been medically examined

by a male Doctor, instead of female Doctor, as was required under Section 27(2)

of the POCSO Act. She further submits that minor irregularities and

inconsistencies cannot be a reason to throw out an otherwise reliable

prosecution case, unless the said irregularity and inconsistency goes to the root

of the matter, which is not the case herein. She accordingly submits there being

no infirmity with the decision of the learned Trial Court, the impugned Judgment

& Order should not be interfered with.

11.Mrs. Emily L. Chhangte, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent

No. 2 reiterates the submission of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and

submits that the appellant being the neighbor of the victim, the appellant held a

place of trust in the mind of the victim girl. However, the appellant had broken

the trust of the little girl by committing a heinous crime upon her. She submits

that most of the time, rape is committed by persons known to the victim and in

view of the horrific crime committed by the appellant, there is a dire need to

have a survivor-centric approach towards victims of sexual violence, particularly

Page No.# 7/20

the children, keeping in view the traumatic long-lasting effects of such victims.

In this respect she has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sanjay Kumar Alias Sunny,

reported in (2017) 2 SCC 51, which at paragraph No. 30 states as follows:-

“30. By no means, it is suggested that whenever such charge of rape is

made, where the victim is a child, it has to be treated as a gospel truth and

the accused person has to be convicted. We have already discussed above

the manner in which the testimony of the prosecutrix is to be examined and

analysed in order to find out the truth therein and to ensure that deposition

of the victim is trustworthy. At the same time, after taking all due

precautions which are necessary, when it is found that the prosecution

version is worth believing, the case is to be dealt with all sensitivity that is

needed in such cases. In such a situation one has to take stock of the

realities of life as well. Various studies show that in more than 80% cases of

such abuses, perpetrators have acquaintance with the victims who are not

strangers. The danger is more within than outside. Most of the time,

acquaintance rapes, when the culprit is a family member, are not even

reported for various reasons, not difficult to fathom. The strongest among

those is the fear of attracting social stigma. Another deterring factor which

many times prevent such victims or their families to lodge a complaint is

that they find whole process of criminal justice system extremely

intimidating coupled with absence of victim protection mechanism.

Therefore, time is ripe to bring about significant reforms in the criminal

justice system as well. Equally, there is also a dire need to have a survivor-

centric approach towards victims of sexual violence, particularly, the

Page No.# 8/20

children, keeping in view the traumatic long-lasting effects on such victims.”

She accordingly submits that the present appeal should be dismissed.

12.We have the learned counsels for the parties.

13.The case in brief is that the informant (PW-1) submitted an F.I.R dated

29.06.2022 to the Officer-in-Charge, Dungtlang Police Station, stating that his

10 year old daughter had been sexually molested by the appellant. As told by

his daughter to her mother (PW-2) and grandmother which was conveyed to

him, they had reasons to believe that she had in fact been raped. The F.I.R also

stated that the victim had mentioned that the appellant had sexual inter-course

with her since the year 2021.

14.In pursuant to the F.I.R, DTLNG Police Station Case No. 10/2022 was

registered on 29.06.2022 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section

376 AB IPC. The Investigating Officer thereafter had the statement of the victim

recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Champhai and also had the victim medically examined by a Doctor. After

completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer (PW-9) submitted the

charge-sheet, on finding a prima facie case under Section 6 of the POCSO Act

Page No.# 9/20

read with Section 376 AB IPC against the appellant.

15.The learned Trial Court framed charge under Section 6 of the POSCO Act,

2012 against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried. The learned Trial Court thereafter, examined 7 Prosecution Witnesses and

11 Defense Witnesses. The learned Trial Court then came to a finding that the

prosecution had been able to prove the offense under Section 6 of the POSCO

Act against the appellant and convicted him accordingly. The appellant was

sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 (twenty) years with a fine

a Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month.

16.The evidence of PW-1, who is the informant and also the father of the

victim, is to the effect that the incident of rape by the appellant on the victim

between April 2021 to mid May 2022 was first informed by the victim to the

mother and the grandmother. PW-1 also stated that on asking the victim about

the incident, the victim told him that the appellant had raped her several times.

Sometimes the incident of rape took place in the office of the appellant and

sometimes in the residence of the appellant. In his cross-examination, PW-1

admitted that on the night of 28.06.2022, he beat the victim and asked her

where she had got the money. It was only then that his daughter disclosed to

him about the incident of rape. It may be stated here that the evidence of the

Page No.# 10/20

PW-5 (victim) shows that the victim had been told to buy “Kuhva” (betel

nut/leaf) for Rs. 20/-. However, the victim came back with “Kuhva”, dildar and

frooti. On PW-1 asking the victim, where she got the money to buy dildar and

frooti, the victim blurted out that the appellant used to give her money after

raping her.

17.The evidence of PW-2, who is the mother of the victim, is to the effect

that the victim was born on 13.11.2011 and that the Police seized the victim’s

Birth Certificate. PW-2 stated that on the night of 28.06.2022, her victim

daughter disclosed to her that the appellant used to rape her and give her

money. PW-2 also stated that the victim told her that the incident of rape took

place in the office of the appellant’s classroom and sometimes in the residence

of the appellant. In her cross-examination, PW-2 stated that the victim made a

disclosure about the rape committed by the appellant, after she had been

beaten by her father.

18.The evidence of PW-3 is to the effect that he was a witness to the seizure

of the victim’s Birth Certificate by the Police on 29.06.2022.

19.The evidence of PW-4 is to the effect that he was a Medical Officer who

conducted the medical examination of the victim on 29.06.2022 at PHC,

Page No.# 11/20

Khawbung. As per his examination, he found that the hymen of the victim was

ruptured/not intact. In his cross-examination, PW-4 also stated that the hymen

could be ruptured by some other act or due to an accident.

20.The evidence of PW-5, who is the victim, is to the effect that in the month

of April 2021, while she was playing with her friends, the appellant called her

and on going to him, the appellant held her hand and took her to his under-

construction house, which was near her house. Inside the constructed toilet, the

appellant started to touch her private parts and gave her Rs. 20/-. In the

beginning of March 2022, during examination holidays, the appellant called her

and took her inside the under-construction house. PW-5 then stated that every

time the appellant took her to his under construction house, the appellant used

to touch her private parts and used to lick the same. He then removed the

victim’s pants and underwear and inserted his penis inside her private parts.

PW-5 stated that as far as she could remember, the appellant inserted his penis

into her private parts more than 10 times. PW-5 further stated that after raping

her, a white discharge came out from his penis and he used to give her (PW-5)

Rs. 10/- to Rs. 50/-. When PW-5 told the appellant that he did not want to do

such things, the appellant threatened her by saying ‘If you shout, I will pull your

hair’. PW-5 stated that due her fear of the appellant, she did not disclose the

Page No.# 12/20

incident to anyone.

21.PW-5 in her evidence further stated that in the month of April 2022, the

appellant used to take her on a bike towards her school. Before dropping her to

school, he used to take her to the High School where he was working and used

to rape her. She further stated that one time when the accused was about to

touch her private parts at his under-construction house, the appellant’s wife,

Aunty Lawmi, saw them and the appellant stopped trying to touch her private

parts. Aunty Lawmi asked them what they were doing and the appellant told her

they were doing nothing. After the incident, Aunty Lawmi told her if she

disclosed the incident to anyone, the appellant and the victim would go to jail.

As she was scared, PW-5 did not disclose the incident to anyone. PW-5 also

stated that after the appellant had finished construction of his house, the

appellant used to take her inside his house and raped her on his bed, during the

absence of the appellant’s family members.

22.PW-5 in her evidence further stated that on 28.06.2022 at night, her

father sent her to buy betel nut/leaf (Kuhva) for Rs. 20/- and while returning

back, PW-5 bought dildar and frooti. Her father then asked her from where she

got the money to buy dildar/frooti. She then disclosed the source of the money

and told her father, mother and grandmother that the appellant used to rape

Page No.# 13/20

her. During cross-examination of PW-5, though PW-5 stated that she never

visited the residence of the appellant but went to the under-construction house,

the facts remains that the residence of the appellant and the under-construction

house are one and the same house. The evidence of PW-7, who is a Sub-

Inspector of Police, is to the effect that she recorded the statement of the

victim.

23.The evidence of PW-9, who is the Investigating Officer, is to the effect that

an F.I.R was submitted on 29.06.2022 by PW-1 and accordingly, DTLNG P.S Case

No. 10/2022 was registered. During his investigation, he found a prima facie

case against the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section

376 AB IPC and accordingly submitted charge-sheet.

24.The learned Trial Court thereafter, recorded the evidence of 11 Defense

Witnesses, which is basically to the effect that the appellant was a reliable and a

good person. Amongst the Defense Witnesses, the wife of the appellant (DW-3)

also gave her evidence, which corroborates the evidence of PW-5, regarding the

appellant and the victim standing together in the ground floor of their house.

The extract of the evidence of DW-3 is as follows:-

“I remember one time when I went down to the ground floor of our house,

we keep our dogs in there and I went down there to check on them. When I

Page No.# 14/20

reach the place, the door was wide open, and just inside the door my

husband was there and beside him the victim was standing. When I asked

what they were doing, the victim replied to me that she was going to leave

town and she asked my husband for some pocket money and I asked her if

he gave it to her and she said that he did not give her any money. I had no

suspicion towards them. I believed in my opinion all the things the victim

said happened to her were fabricated stories and had no base in the truth.”

25.The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC by the

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champhai, is to the effect that the appellant used

to take her to his house and his school, where he raped her many times. The

appellant also used to give money to the victim. The statement of the victim

under Section 164 Cr.PC also speaks of DW-3 finding the appellant and the

victim together in the appellant’s house. Further it also speaks of DW-3

threatening the victim that if she disclosed the incident about the appellant

touching the victim to anybody, the victim and the appellant could be jailed. The

164 Cr.PC statement further speaks of the victim’s father sending the victim to

purchase betel nut/leaf (kuhva) and her father beating her up as she had also

bought dildar and frooti. Her father asked her where she has got the extra

money to buy the said articles. Thereafter, the victim confessed to her parents

that the appellant used to give her money and in return, he would rape her.

26.In his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC the appellant has denied

Page No.# 15/20

raping the victim.

27.As can be seen from the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court, the

victim has not spoken about experiencing any pain or bleeding from her vagina

or there being any injuries on her private parts, despite being raped by a grown

man. Though it is expected that the victim would have experienced some pain

and there could have been some bleeding, we cannot say for certain as to

whether pain or bleeding would occur in all cases of rape. We cannot speculate

on such issues as it is quite possible that the child victim did not suffer any pain

or bleeding. Just because the victim stated in her cross-examination that she

never experienced pain in her private parts and that she had not menstruated or

had blood coming out from her private parts does not prove that rape had not

occurred.

28.We have also noticed that there is no whisper from anybody, to the effect

that there is any enmity between the family of the victim and the appellant. It is

also not the case of the appellant that the child had been tutored to make a

false allegation of rape against the appellant. The defense taken by the

appellant in the trail and even in this appeal, is only with regard to the fact no

rape had occurred. However, we are of the view that the statement of the victim

under Section 164 Cr.PC has corroborated the testimony of the victim given

Page No.# 16/20

during trial. Further, the fact that the appellant and the victim were found

together in the ground floor of the appellant’s house by the appellant’s wife,

shows that there has been corroboration of the testimony of the victim by the

appellant’s wife.

29.In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh (supra), the Supreme Court

held that it can by no means be suggested that whenever a charge of rape is

made involving a child, it has to be treated as the gospel truth and that the

accused person has to be convicted. At the same time, after taking all due

precautions, where it is found that the prosecution's version is worth believing,

the case is to be dealt with all sensitivity that is needed in such cases. In such a

situation, one has to take stock of the realities of life as well. The Supreme

Court further held that various studies show that in more than 80% cases of

such abuses, perpetrators have acquaintance with the victims, who are not

strangers. The danger is more within than outside. Most of the time,

acquaintance rapes, when the culprit is a family member, are not even reported

for various reasons, not difficult to fathom. The Supreme Court further held that

the strongest among those is the fear of attracting social stigma. The Supreme

Court thus held that the time was right to bring about significant reforms in the

criminal justice system and that there was a dire need to have a survivor-centric

Page No.# 17/20

approach towards victims of sexual violence, particularly the children, keeping in

view the traumatic, long-lasting effects on such victims.

30.In the case of Lok Mal Alias Loku (supra), the Supreme Court held that

merely because in the medical evidence, there were no major injury marks, this

cannot be a reason to discard the otherwise reliable evidence of the prosecutrix.

It further held that it is not necessary that in each and every case where rape is

alleged, there has to be injury to the private parts of the victim and it depends

on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Absence of injuries on the

private parts of the victim is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution. In

the present case, the rape had occurred for more than a year, between April

2021 and May 2022. Further, the hymen of the victim had ruptured. Thus, with

numerous occasions of rape having occurred, it is possible that any injuries that

might have been there initially would have disappeared at the time of the

medical examination. As such, the absence of injury cannot be a ground to

throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.

31.In the case of Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu (supra), the Supreme Court

held that a sterling witness should be of a very high quality and caliber, whose

version should be unassailable. The consistency of the statement of the sterling

witness should be the same from the starting point till the end and that if there

Page No.# 18/20

are several significant variations in her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC and

her deposition in Court, a conviction cannot be made in the absence of any

supporting evidence. In the present case, we find the evidence of the victim to

be truthful and reliable, and it inspires the confidence of the Court.

32.Besides the above, the evidence of DW-3 has corroborated the evidence of

the victim with regard to the appellant and the victim being found together in

the appellant's house. The statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.PC also

corroborates the victim's testimony during trial. Just because the victim did not

mention in her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC about the threat given by the

appellant to the effect that if the victim shouted, he would pull her hair, we find

the same to be a minor inconsistency, not touching upon the root cause of the

case. In any event, it is settled law that conviction can be founded on the

testimony of the prosecutrix alone, unless there are compelling reasons for

seeking corroboration. Minor inconsistencies cannot be a reason to throw out an

otherwise reliable prosecution case. The evidence of the prosecutrix is that of an

injured witness and we find that there has been no major inconsistency or

discrepancy in the evidence given by the victim vis-à-vis her statement under

Section 164 Cr.PC. There is also no whisper to the effect that the victim is a

child who concocts stories. As such, we do not find any reason to doubt the

Page No.# 19/20

prosecution case.

33.With regard to the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae with regard to

the examination of the victim by a male Doctor, which is in violation of Section

27(2) of the POCSO Act 2012, as the medical examination of a girl victim is to

be done by a female Doctor, we find that the medical examination had been

done in the PHC at Khawbung Village. It is very likely that the male Doctor, who

examined the victim, was the only Doctor in the Village. The said issue of

whether a female Doctor was present in Khawbung Village could have been

clarified, if the Doctor (PW-4) had been examined on that issue. The same was

not done during cross-examination of the Doctor. In any event, it is not the case

of the appellant that the medical examination report of the victim was wrong,

and as such, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the appellant, due

to PW-4 examining the victim.

34.For all the reasons stated above, we do not find any ground to interfere

with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court.

35.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

36.Send back the TCR.

Page No.# 20/20

37.In appreciation of the assistance provided by the learned Amicus Curiae

and the Legal Aid Council for the respondent No. 2, their fees should be paid by

the State Legal Services Authority, as per norms.

JUDGE JUDGE

Comparing Assistant