1. Heard Mr. Jonathan L. Sailo, the learned Amicus Curiae as well as Mr. A.K. Rokhum, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

2. This is an appeal from jail filed by the accused appellant against the Judgment & Order dated 06.06.2017, passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, Aizawl in SC No. 1/2015 arising out of Criminal Trial No. 41/2015 convicting the accused appellant under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and thereafter, sentencing him to undergo a Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years vide Order dated 07.06.2017.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that an FIR was lodged by one Shri. Vanlalchaka, (PW 1) on 26.09.2014 to the effect that the accused appellant on 09.09.2014 sexually abused his daughter Zohmingliani, aged 6 years at the residence of one Laltluanga of North Khawlek. As a result, Darlawn P.S. Case No. 24/2014 dated 26.09.2014, under Section 376 (2) (i) of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act was duly registered and investigated upon. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet on 13.12.2014. Thereafter, charge was framed by the learned Special Judge under the POSCO Act on 02.02.2015 against the accused appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and to which, the accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Accordingly, trial against the accused appellant was initiated. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 5 prosecution witnesses and upon closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused appellant in his defence did not lead any evidence. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge vide Judgment & Order dated 06.06.2017 convicted the accused appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and thereafter, vide Order dated 07.06.2017 sentenced him to a Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years.

4. Mr. Jonathan L. Sailo, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that from the deposition of the PW 1, who is the father of the victim as well as the informant, he came to learn about the incident from his neighbor Nunthari. He submits that PW 1 having got the information only from Nunthari, the prosecution ought to have examined Nunthari as one of the prosecution witnesses but however, the same was not done. Likewise, from the deposition of the prosecutrix, she was taken to the house of Laltluanga, where according to her, two grown-ups were also present in the house. The prosecution however failed to examine the two grown-ups said to be present in the house when the incident took place and moreover, the owner of the house Laltluanga was not examined in the trial. Mr. Jonathan L. Sailo by referring to the deposition of the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief as well as the judicial statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate on 22.10.2014 submits that there is a clear contradiction. Therefore, the accused appellant could not have been convicted with such contradictory statements made by the prosecutrix herself. Furthermore, referring to the deposition of the Investigating Officer who appeared before the Trial Court as PW 5, he reiterates that the occupants of the house of Laltluanga, where the offence against the prosecutrix was alleged to have been committed ought to have been examined. He therefore submits that under the circumstances, the conviction of the accused appellant cannot be sustained.

5. Mr. A.K. Rokhum, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that from the deposition of the prosecutrix before the Trial Court, the guilt of the accused and his commission of an offence under Section 4 of the POSCO Act has clearly been established. He further submits that her testimony has also been corroborated by the medical evidence. The Doctor who conducted the medical examination was examined as PW 3 and he testified before the Court tha