Lingdum Tama vs The State Of AP & Ors.

(Pranjal Das, J) Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. T. Lomdak, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State; Ms. S. V. Darang, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr. P. Talik, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the convict appellant, Lingdum Tama, under section 415 of the BNSS 2023, aggrieved by the judgment dated 14-07-2025 and order of sentence dated 24-07-2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Yupia, Papumpare district, Arunachal Pradesh, convicting the appellant in POCSO Case No. 01/ 2021, arising out of ITA PS Case No. 16/2020 under section 375/376(2)(k) IPC. It is stated that by the impugned judgment dated 14-07-2025, the appellant was convicted under section 376(2) IPC. For the aforesaid conviction, the learned Trial court sentenced the appellant to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 (two) months. He was given the benefit of set off.

The prosecution case in brief is that one Smti Likha Asha, chairperson of Child Welfare Committee, Itanagar, Capital Complex, lodged a complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of the Women PS Itanagar on 14-02-2020. It is stated in the complaint that one minor girl named X, aged about 13 years, was produced before the Child Welfare Committee on 12-02-2020 and she is sheltered at Child Care Institute, OJU Welfare Association, Naharlagun.

It is further stated and alleged that after recording her statement, it came to light that she has been a victim of child trafficking, child labour, rape, physical assault, wrongful confinement, etc. The statement of the said victim is also annexed with the complaint. It is further stated and alleged in the complaint before the police by the CWC Chairperson, that as per the statement of the victim girl, around 4-5 years back, she was sold by her father, ABC, to the present convict appellant and forced to labor. And that once, she was taken to jhum field by the convict appellant and his wife, where she was tied by chain and repeatedly raped by the convict appellant and whenever she resisted, she was physically assaulted. It is stated that the CWC found the case to be heinous in nature against the child and therefore prayed for taking suitable action.

On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Itanagar Women PS Case No. 16/2020 was registered under section 370/370 (A)/368/376 IPC, read with section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and investigation started into the case. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet being CS No. 74/2020 dated 17-11-2020 against the present appellant under section 370/370(A)/376 IPC, read with section 6 of POCSO Act. The charge sheet was also filed against the father of the victim girl under section 370 IPC.

Subsequently, the learned Trial court vide order dated 01-04-2022, framed charges against the convict appellant under section 370/370(A)(1)/376(2)(i) IPC, read with section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Charge was also framed against the co-accused under section 370(4) of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to both the accused persons which were denied by them and claimed to be tried whereupon the trial started.

During the trial, the prosecution examined 7 (seven) prosecution witnesses including the victim, Medical Officer and Investigating Officer. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under section 313 CrPC. The appellant adduced evidence of himself as DW2 and on behalf of the defence, two other witnesses adduced evidence as DW1 and DW3. After completion of trial, the co-accused who was charged under section 370 (4) IPC was acquitted. But the present appellant as accused was convicted and sentenced as already narrated above. Hence the present appeal.

During the trial, the learned Trial court framed charges against the convict appellant under section 370/370(A)(1)/ 376(2)(i) IPC, read with section 6 of the POCSO Act. The charges were framed against the present convict appellant, Lingdum Tama, and the victim girl's father, namely, ABC, who was also co-accused. Against the co-accused and father of the victim girl, the learned Trial court framed charge under section 370 (4) IPC. However, during the trial, the learned Trial court was pleased to acquit the father of the victim girl, upon not finding sufficient evidence for the charge.

With regard to the present convict appellant also, the learned Trial court dropped the penal provision under the POCSO Act as it held that, the evidence on record was insufficient regarding her minority. The learned Trial court also did not find sufficient evidence to convict the present appellant for the penal provisions of IPC pertaining to human trafficking, under which also he was charged. Thus, the learned Trial court was pleased to convict the present appellant, Lingdum Tama, under section 376 (2) IPC.

However, the learned Trial court has not elaborated on which clause of section 376 (2) under which the appellant was convicted, though, in the sentencing order, the learned Trial court mentioned about the appellant being in a position of control and dominance over the victim and about his committing repeated rape upon her. As already mentioned at the outset, for his conviction under section 376 (2) IPC, he was sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) in default, he was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months. It may be mentioned herein that section 376 (2) has sub clauses from (a) to (n).

As far as punishment is concerned, for offence under all these clauses under section 376 (2) IPC, the imprisonment imposed is rigorous imprisonment not less than 10 years, but which may extend to life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life and shall also be liable to fine. Further, section 376 (3) pertains to commission of rape on a woman below 16 years and the punishment prescribed is rigorous imprisonment for not less than 20 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which would mean life imprisonment for the remainder of the person's natural life and shall also be liable to fine.

The finding of the learned Trial court with regard to the penal provision of POCSO Act and the penal provisions pertaining to human trafficking and exploitation have attained finality as prosecution has not preferred any appeal against the same. Therefore, in this appeal, the said issues cannot be reopened and the adjudication of the appeal would be confined to determining the correctness or otherwise of the learned Trial court's decision convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 376 (2) IPC.

Mr. M. Pertin, learned Senior counsel submits that in the case record of the learned Trial Court, there is no indication that the prosecution was heard during the Trial. It is submitted that the relationship between the victim and the accused, if any, was consensual and that her testimony is not of a sterling quality. It is submitted that she did not disclose before her parents about the incident. It is also submitted that the Investigating Officer was examined as PW2 though he should have been the last witness to be examined. It is submitted that the testimony of the prosecutrix is contradictory and there are also discrepancies regarding her date of birth. It is submitted that evidence reveals that she had also cast her vote in 2019 Assembly elections. It is submitted that the time of assault as alleged is vague.

On the other hand, the learned Additional PP, Ms. L. Hage, submits that there is no infirmity in the judgment and that the victim has cogently testified about being subjected to the crime, which was heinous in nature. It is submitted that the parents of the victim are also responsible for her plight.

The learned counsel for the informant, submits that the victim was a child at the time of the incident and that her consent was immaterial. It is submitted that the act of the appellant also violated the provisions of child marriage prohibition law. It is submitted that there is no infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence and that the same should be upheld. The learned counsel for the victim submits that the testimony and the statements of the victim are consistent and that the crime against her has been proved during the trial and therefore, the judgment should be confirmed.

During the trial, the victim was examined as PW3. The learned trial court resorted to some preliminary questioning before proceeding to record her evidence. She stated in her examination-in-chief that the appellant had withdrawn her from boarding school and brought her to his residence at Ganga, Itanagar and that she stayed in his house for three consecutive years. She stated that the appellant used to employ her for selling dried meat at the Ganga market and also for doing household works. PW3 has specifically stated in her deposition that in their house, the appellant used to touch her chest in the night hours whenever his children were not at home and that she grew scared of him and used to run away from his residence in the evening and go to her parents at Naharlagun. She also stated that when the appellant used to come to her room in the night and touched her breast, she would scream and shout at him.

Testifying further, PW3 stated that on one occasion, she was taken to their farmhouse at Poma village, where the wife of the convict appellant was also there along with their son. But they came back and the appellant kept her in the farmhouse for one week, during which he used to sleep with her every night and commit sexual intercourse and bad things. Subsequently, she was taken back to her parents' house and when she came again, upon being dropped by her father, the appellant started coming to her room in the night hours and again started touching over her chest. She testified that she had told her parents that the appellant had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her at the farmhouse in Poma village, whereupon there was a quarrel between the appellant and her parents.

She testified that when she came next to her own house, her father had said that he would not send her again to the residence of the appellant. But subsequently, the appellant and his wife came to their house and requested her father to allow them to take the victim girl with them. PW3 testified that thereafter, she stayed in the house of the appellant for 2 to 3 months and during this period also, the appellant used to do the same things in the night, i.e., entering her room, touching her body and committing sexual intercourse, as a result of which she became terrified every evening. In cross-examination, PW3 has stated that her father had asked her to study in school under the control and custody of the appellant.

She also testified in cross-examination that as she was not performing well in studies, her father requested the appellant to allow her to work as a salesgirl to sell dry meat at the Ganga market under his supervision. In cross-examination, she stated that she stayed with the appellant and his wife for 4 years at Ganga, Itanagar. No questions specifically were put in cross-examination on behalf of the convict appellant to assail her testimony in examination-in-chief about being subjected to sexual assault and forced sexual intercourse.

During the trial, the statement of the victim girl was recorded before the learned JMFC, Yupia and it was exhibited as Exhibit 2. In her statement also, she stated about being kept in the house of the appellant by her father and that though she initially studied in school, but later she was used for selling dried meat in the market and also other works. In her statement before learned JMFC, Yupia also, the victim has stated about the appellant coming to her room and touching her breast and whenever she refused, he used to beat her. She also stated about being kept in the Poma village farm for a week during which the appellant raped her every night and even used to chain her sometimes during the day so that she cannot run away.

In her statement, she has also stated that after she returned, she was made to return to the house of the appellant from her house. Again, the same thing repeated every night wherein the appellant used to come to her bed and touch her. She stated that during her entire stay in the house of the appellant, which was for four years, this happened on an everyday basis. Subsequently, on one occasion, she got an opportunity to run away, which she did, and then reported the matter to the authorities.

From the testimony of the victim, I find that she has clearly and repeatedly stated that when she was staying in the house of the appellant, he used to forcefully molest her by touching her breasts and chest, and he also used to commit forced sexual intercourse upon her. The said testimony has remained unshaken in cross-examination and stood its ground. Rather, as mentioned earlier, no specific questions were put in cross-examination to demolish her testimony about being subjected to molestation and forced sexual intercourse. The statement of the victim recorded before learned by JMFC, Yupia during investigation lends support to her testimony during the trial, and both are in harmony with each other and corroborate each other. In her statement, also, she has stated about being in the house of the appellant for about four years, during which she was regularly subjected to molestation and rape. It is well settled that in a prosecution for sexual offence, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim, provided the same is found to be cogent, reliable, and trustworthy.

PW1, Mrs. Likha Asha, is the informant of the case, and she was the then chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee in Itanagar. During her testimony, she stated that on 12-02-2020, the members of the Child Line Itanagar produced the victim before the CWC with a history of child trafficking, child labour, illegal confinement, physical assault, and rape. She proved the FIR as Exhibit P1 and her signature thereon as Exhibit P1 (a). In her cross-examination, she stated that though she did not find physical injuries on the body of the victim, but she did not appear healthy and was traumatised by the incident alleged.

Dr. Gumyir Lollen, the Medical Officer who examined the victim during an investigation, testified as PW4 during the trial, in which he stated that on 03-03-2020, while he was in duty in the state hospital, which is now called TRIHMS, the victim was forwarded for medical examination, which he conducted. He stated in his testimony that though she did not find any external and fresh injuries on her genitals, but her hymen had an old tear. He exhibited the medical report as Exhibit P8 and his signature thereon as Exhibit P8(a). In cross-examination, he clarified that he could not give any conclusive report with regard to recent sexual intercourse. He stated that during physical examination, the victim's vagina admitted two fingers, and that the victim told him that the convict appellant had been committing sexual intercourse with her for the last two years. He also stated in cross-examination about being told by the victim that the appellant had been exploiting her sexually.

Thus, the testimony of the Medical Officer is compatible with the allegations of the victim about being subjected to repeated sexual intercourse over a considerable period. In other words, I find that the medical evidence corroborates the testimony of the victim in the instant case.

Smt. Lingdum Yame is the wife of the appellant, and she is also a prosecution witness testifying as PW5. She admitted in her examination-in-chief that she and the appellant kept the victim at their residence at Ganga for about five years, till registration of this case. And during this time, she assisted in performing household works.

The mother of the victim and wife of the co-accused, who was subsequently acquitted by the Trial court, adduced evidence as PW6, in which she stated that on the request of the appellant and his wife, they kept the victim in the house of the appellant for one year. And though initially she studied, but as she could not pass her examination, therefore, she continued staying in their house, helping them in selling vegetables and dried meat at Ganga market. PW6 also stated that the victim stayed with the appellant and his wife for about five years.

PW7 is Ms. Jaya Doji, who stated that on 11-02-2020, CWC Itanagar received a letter from Coordinator, Child Line Itanagar, praying for remanding the victim to CCI and conduct necessary enquiry about allegations of rape. And accordingly, she referred the victim to Oju Mission Welfare for providing shelter. PW7 stated that during the enquiry, the victim revealed that her father had brought her and handed over to the appellant at Naharlagun and that the appellant used to touch her inappropriately. She also stated about being raped in the farmhouse at Poma village and that there, she was chained and raped repeatedly. PW7 has testified about the victim revealing about atrocities and sexual assault in the house of the appellant by the appellant.

Inspector Nich Rupa, is the Investigating Officer of the case and she testified as PW2 during the trial. She stated about receiving the complaint in Itanagar Women PS on 15-02-2020 about repeated physical assault and rape upon the victim by the convict appellant. She stated about carrying out the preliminary investigation and doing the needful. She stated about forwarding the victim to the Magistrate at Yupia court for recording her statement under section 164 CrPC, which she collected later. PW2 stated that during investigation, he found that the appellant used to commit forcible sexual intercourse with the victim during her stay in his residence at Ganga and also subjected her to physical assault and other atrocities.

PW2 proved the school admission form as Exhibit P3, the progress report of victim obtained from Christian Mission School as Exhibit P4, the sketch map as Exhibit P5, with Exhibit P5(a) being his signature thereon; Exhibit P6 being the seizure memo of the victim's school admission form. PW2 proved the charge sheet as Exhibit P7 and his signatures thereon as Exhibit P7(a) to 7 (f). In cross-examination, he stated that as per the version of the victim, the last incident took place in the month of January 2020. She stated in cross-examination that during investigation, she found that the victim was handed over to the appellant by her father. During investigation, she found that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse upon the victim.

The father of the victim adduced evidence during the trial as DW1, in which he admitted that he had given over the said victim/ daughter to the house of the appellant. However, DW1 is silent about commission of sexual assault and rape by the appellant upon his daughter.

DW2, Shri Lingdu Takum, also has not stated about any sexual assault. The same is the case with the testimony of Shri. Pornga Bayor, DW3.

As already discussed above, we do not find infirmity in the testimony of the prosecutrix, which is also corroborated by her statement before Learned JMFC, Yupia during the investigation. The statement of the victim about being repeatedly molested by the appellant and also being raped by the appellant has stood its ground in cross-examination and has remained unshaken. In fact, as already discussed, proper questions were not put in cross-examination to demolish her testimony in this regard.

Thus, we find the testimony of the prosecutrix along with her statement to be cogently revealing about the victim being subjected to repeated molestation and rape by the appellant during her stay in the house of the appellant and his wife. It may be mentioned herein that the fact that she stayed in their house is revealed by the testimony of the appellant's wife as well, who is also one of the prosecution witnesses.

One of the contentions of the defence, which has also been testified to by the defence witnesses, one of whom is the acquitted co-accused cum father of the victim, is that, the victim was given in marriage to the appellant, as his second wife. They have stated about the victim agreeing to the same and the ceremony being solemnized by sacrificing a pig. However, upon perusing the prosecution evidence, especially the testimony of the victim, we are of the considered opinion that there is inadequate evidence to prove any such marriage between the victim and the convict appellant.

In her statement recorded before learned JMFC, Yupia (Exhibit P2), though the victim has stated about some people in the market referring to her as the second wife of the appellant, but she herself never said that she was married with the appellant and rather, has stated that she was subjected to repeated crime by the appellant. In her testimony during the trial as PW3 also, though the victim has stated about staying in the house of the appellant for about four years, but she has never stated in any clear manner that she was married to the appellant. Rather, she has stated about how she was exploited, assaulted and subjected to the offenses described by her, in her testimony as already discussed earlier.

The victim as PW3 has only stated about her father keeping her in the custody and control of the appellant, initially for studying in school and subsequently, she stayed in their household, helping in selling meat in the market and also doing household works. In cross-examination, she specifically stated that there was no discussion about her marriage between her parents and the appellant. She expressed ignorance as to whether her father made any offer of marriage to the appellant.

Thus, from her testimony, it does not emerge that she was married to the appellant. And hence, on the aspect of the projected marriage of the victim with the appellant, there are contradictions between what is stated by the defence witnesses and what is stated by the most crucial witness PW3, the victim. Therefore, the contention of the defence about the victim being appellant’s wife is discarded.

Upon considering and appreciating the entire evidence on record, we come to the considered opinion and finding that the appellant was responsible for repeatedly committing sexual assault and rape upon the victim, in a situation where she was living under his supervision and control in his house.

Therefore, in our considered view, the sub clauses (f) and (n) of section 376 (2) are attracted in the instant case. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under section 376 (2) recorded by the learned Trial court is upheld and confirmed.

We have also given our consideration to the sentence imposed by the learned Trial court in the context of the nature of the offenses committed upon the victim. Here was a case where the victim was one amongst several children of her parents and she was handed over to the appellant and his wife, where she stayed for four years in their house helping in domestic work. During this period, the appellant repeatedly molested and committed sexual offense upon her causing great trauma as revealed by her testimony. On a suitable occasion, she got a chance to escape and thereafter, she landed before the law enforcing authority.

Considering the nature of the offenses and the manner in which the victim was subjected to the offences by the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that there should not be any modification of the sentence on the lower side. Therefore, the sentence imposed by the learned Trial court is also upheld and confirmed.

Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14-07-2025 and sentence order dated 24-07-2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Yupia in POCSO Case No. 1/2021 (arising out of ITA PS Case No. 16/2020) convicting and sentencing the convict appellant is hereby upheld and confirmed.

Resultantly, the instant criminal appeal stands dismissed and disposed of.

Return back the original records to the learned Trial court.