The reliability of the testimony of a victim of sexual assault, particularly a minor, is vital, and minor inconsistencies in the evidence may not necessarily undermine the credibility of the testimony.

JUDGMENT

Nelson Sailo, J. - Heard Mr. Jonathan L. Sailo, learned Amicus Curiae as well as Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent.

2. This is an appeal from jail filed by the accused/appellant against the Judgment & Order dated 18.06.2018 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), Mizoram, Aizawl in S.C No. 192/2016 in Criminal Trial No. 1867/2016 whereby, the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one (1) month.

3. Brief facts of the case is that an FIR was filed by one B. Vanlalthlamuani before the Officer-in-Charge, Bawngkawn Police Station on 26.10.2016 to the effect that her grand-daughter who was 11 years of age was sexually molested and raped by her grand-son i.e., the appellant herein, who was aged 30 years on various occasions in their house at Tuirial Airfield Vengthar. She stated that they came to learn about the incident only after her grand-daughter was questioned by the authorities in the orphanage home. She therefore requested that necessary action be taken as per law.

4. As a result of the FIR, Bawngkawn P.S Case No. 336/2016 dated 26.10.2016 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was registered and investigation conducted. After investigating into the matter, the Investigating Officer found the charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act well established against the appellant and filed charge-sheet No. 256/2016 before the Court. Following the submission of the chargesheet, charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was framed against the appellant on 27.02.2017 by the Court of Special Judge under POCSO Act where the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed for trial. As such, trial against the appellant commenced.

5. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 prosecution witnesses out of the 10 prosecution witnesses cited and the defense examined only one witness. After the prosecution concluded their evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC on 23.04.2018 where he denied his involvement in the alleged crime and stated that he wanted to adduce defense witness by examining his own father as defense witness. The father of the appellant was then examined as a sole defense witness and thereafter, the Trial Court upon hearing the rival parties passed the impugned Judgment & Order convicting and sentencing him in the manner as already stated herein above.

6. Mr. Jonathan L. Sailo, learned Amicus Curiae submits that there are serious inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the evidence of the prosecutrix herself. Referring to the statement made by the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that she stated that she was sexually assaulted three times in their house and four times in the house of her mother's younger sister. Whereas, the prosecutrix in her Examination-in-Chief before the Court did not state as to how many times she was sexually assaulted. The learned Amicus Curiae further submits that one of the grounds for filing the appeal by the appellant is that the learned Trial Court in its Judgment & Order dated 18.06.2018 concluded that the appellant as well as one Sh. Lalsawmliana were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 10 years with fine but the fact remains that there is no other person who have been charge as co-accused to the alleged crime. Therefore, from the impugned Judgment & Order, it cannot be made out as to who has been convicted and sentenced.

7. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that according to the prosecutrix, she had informed Ennet B. Lalthlengliani (PW-8) who was working at the shelter home during the year 2015 that the appellant used to commit penetrative sexual assault on her. However, in the Ex