Point of Law: Once the statement of prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the Court, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required, unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the Court for corroboration of a statement.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. Ruthi Vanlalhruaii, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mizoram.

2. The appellant has challenged the impugned Judgment & Order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Special Court, POCSO Act, Aizawl, Mizoram in S.C. No. 19 of 2017 arising out of Kulikawn P.S. Case No. 140 of 2016 dated 20.10.2016by which the appellant is convicted under section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and against the impugned Order dated 09.03.2021and sentenced to undergo 3 (three) years of simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- (rupees one thousand)only and in default of payment of the fine, another S.I. for 1 (one) month.

3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 20.10.2016, a written FIR was received from the Respondent No.2, stating that her granddaughter who was of 11 years was assaulted several times by the present appellant in 2016 and the respondent No.2 requested to take legal action in this respect. Hence, the Officer-in-Charge of Kulikawn, Police Station registered Kulikawn PS Case No.140/2016 dated 20.10.2016 U/s 8 of POCSO Act, 2012, and the matter was investigation into. The present appellant was arrested on 20.10.2016. The investigation was accordingly initiated and during the course of the investigation, the Prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. P.C. Lalramhluna (Prosecution’s Witness No.7) on 20.10.2016 and the appellant was also examined by Dr. V. Lalremruata (Prosecution’s Witness No.6) on 20.10.2016. The prosecutrix’s pre-trial Statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded on 21.10.2016. After the investigation was completed, a Chargesheet along with its annexures/enclosures was submitted before the learned Trial Court against the present appellant.

4. That the learned Judge, Special Court, POCSO Act, Aizawl Mizoram framed Charge under Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the present appellant on 08.06.2016. Since the appellant pleaded not guilty, the trial was conducted against him. The learned Trial Court examined 8 (eight) prosecution witnesses and after the examination of the present appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 20.10.2016 wherein the appellant denied the allegations made against him and 2(two) defense witnesses were examined.

5. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned Judgment & Order dated 23.02.2021 by which the present appellant was convicted under Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo 3 (three) years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/-(one thousand) and on failure to pay the fine, another simple imprisonment of 1 (one) month, vide the impugned Order dated 09.03.2021. Aggrieved with the impugned Judgment & Order dated 23.02.2021 and the subsequent impugned Order dated 09.03.2021 passed in S.C. No. 19 of 2017 by the learned Trial Court, the appellant prefers the present appeal

6. Ms. Ruthi Vanlalhruaii, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. submits that the evidences of the prosecution witnesses are indirect evidences except the evidence of the prosecutrix. Although the prosecutrix’s evidence implicated the appellant, the same is uncorroborated and besides, the evidence of the prosecutrix, is untrustworthy and is devoid of a sterling quality. There are serious contradictions which could give the benefit of doubt in favour to the appellant. Whereas the prosecutrix, deposed that appellant sexually assaulted her while there was no one, except on the occasion when the appellant visited prosecutrix’s house to pray for her father who was ill at that time. She stated in her pre-trial statement that the appellant sexually assaulted her more than once even in the presence of her father. That from the medical evidence which is in the record, there is nothing to indicate the sexual assault caused by the appellant upon the victim. That from the evidence of the defense witnesses, it is revealed that the prosecutrix, used to help her father in selling liquor and she is having a loose character. S