The Gauhati High Court, in a significant judgment, quashed the conviction and 20-year sentence of Laldingluaia under Section 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, due to procedural lapses in the framing of charges. The Court emphasized that framing charges without specifying the subsection of Section 4 renders a harsher sentence untenable.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Marli Vankung on November 20, 2024.
Case Background
The case stemmed from an incident reported on December 23, 2021, where a six-year-old girl was allegedly sexually assaulted by the appellant, Laldingluaia, at his home in Thingdawl, Mizoram. The victim’s mother filed an FIR on the same day, and the appellant was charged under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
Following a trial in the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court, Kolasib, Laldingluaia was convicted and sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment on July 25, 2023. The sentence aligned with Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, which mandates a minimum 20-year imprisonment for penetrative sexual assault on a child below the age of 16.
Issues Highlighted by the High Court
The Gauhati High Court set aside the trial court’s judgment and sentence, citing several significant lapses:
1. Ambiguity in Charges Framed:
The High Court noted that the charge against the appellant was framed under Section 4 of the POCSO Act without specifying whether it pertained to subsection 4(1) or 4(2). Justice Zothankhuma observed that this lack of specificity deprived the accused of a fair opportunity to prepare his defense against the harsher penalty under Section 4(2).
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s precedent in Nanak Chand v. State of Punjab (1955 SCC Online SC 52), emphasizing that failure to frame precise charges could vitiate a trial.
2. Failure to Properly Assess Child Witness Testimony:
The trial court also failed to conduct a preliminary examination to ensure that the six-year-old victim understood the nature of the proceedings and could give rational and reliable testimony. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pradeep v. State of Haryana (AIR 2023 SC 3245), the High Court underscored the necessity of recording the judge’s satisfaction about the child’s ability to comprehend and truthfully answer questions.
3. Deficiencies in Medical Evidence:
The medical examination of the victim lacked conclusive findings. The medical officer’s testimony did not clarify key aspects such as hymenal rupture or external genital injuries, raising doubts about corroboration of the child’s allegations.
Court’s Observations
The High Court stated, “Due to the absence of a specific charge under Section 4(2), the appellant could not have been sentenced to a minimum of 20 years as mandated under Section 4(2). This constitutes a grave procedural lapse, amounting to prejudice against the accused.”
Further, the Court emphasized the necessity of safeguarding the rights of both victims and accused through adherence to procedural rigor, particularly in cases involving severe penalties.
Decision and Remand
The Court set aside the trial court’s judgment and sentence and remanded the case for retrial from the stage of charge framing. It directed the trial court to ensure compliance with all procedural safeguards, including a proper evaluation of the child witness’s capacity and medical evidence.
The appellant was represented by Mrs. Emily L. Chhangte, Amicus Curiae, and Mr. C. Tlanthianghlima, Legal Aid Counsel. The respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Vanneihsiami.
