Point of Law - No legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga learned counsel for the appellant along with Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl learned Addl. PP.

2. This is an appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 21.01.2021 passed by the Judge, Special Court, POCSO Act, Aizawl in SC No. 45/2017 in C/No.427/2017 A/o Saitual PS C/No 31/2016 by which the appellant was convicted under section 6 POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I 10(ten) years with a fine of RS. 10,000/- I.D S.I for one month on 02.02.2021.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 21.11.2016, a written FIR was received at the Police Station, Saitual from one Lalroliani of Keifang Police Veng stating that her husband, Vanlalsawia, had raped their thirteen-year-old daughter X, at about 10:00 Am that day in their residence. That he had, on a number of earlier occasions touched her breasts with the intention of having sex with her. A case under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, was accordingly registered and investigated into. The place of occurrence was visited. She was forwarded to the hospital at Saitual for a medical examination which showed that her hymen was perforated. Her pretrial statement was recorded by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class on 22.11.2016. Her birth certificate was seized and it showed that X was born on 25.4.2003 and was still a child. The accused, Vanlalsawia, 40, S/o Lallianthanga, was arrested on 21.11.2016, and he was also medically examined. A prima facie case under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, was well found against the accused and charge sheet was accordingly submitted. The documents forwarded along with it included the statement of the alleged victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C./25 POCSO Act by Mr. H. Lalduhsanga, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aizawl, on 22.11.2016, her birth certificate and the reports of the medical examinations of the accused and alleged victim.

4. On 7.4.2017the learned trial court, framed charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act which was read out to the appellant and to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined seven of the eight witnesses listed in the Chargesheet to prove their case. The appellant was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence against him and three witnesses were examined in his defence, which included the appellant himself. Thereafter, the learned trial court, after considering the evidence adduced and on hearing both the parties convicted the appellant under section 6 POCSO Act on 21.01.20121 and sentenced him to undergo R.I 10(ten) years with a fine of RS. 10,000/- I.D S.I for one month vide its order dated 02.02.2021. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

5. Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deposition of the victim/prosecutrix is untrustworthy since her deposition in the Court and her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.PC are not consistence with each other. There is significant variation in the statements of the victim and her testimony cannot be said to be trustworthy. The alleged victim has falsely accused her father/appellant because her father has scolded her for her loose character. From the evidence on record it can be seen that the appellant had in fact handed her over to the police at Saitual Police Station so that the police could scold her tell and her to reform herself. That this is proved from the deposition of DW-1 Lalhmuaksanga, who stated that on 21.11.2016, he had accompanied the appellant to search for his daughter ‘X’ and they found ‘X’ with 2 (two) girls and 3 (three) boys at Kangbawk. The appellant took ‘X’ alongwith the 2 girls to the Police Station and he asked the Police to scold ‘X’ saying that ‘X’ used to stay out and not return home. The Police had scolded ‘X’ and it was about 10 PM when they were asked to leave. This statement of DW -1 has not been rebutted a