JUDGMENT :

[Nelson Sailo, J.]

1. This is an appeal from Jail filed by the accused/convict (hereafter referred to as the appellant) against the Judgment dated 30.03.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court under POCSO Act, Lunglei in Crl. Tr. No. 417/2019. The operative portion of the impugned Judgment by which the appellant was convicted and sentenced as contained in paragraph Nos. 25 & 29 are abstracted as below:-

“25. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the courts find the accused guilty and convict him for commission of offence of ‘aggravated penetrative sexual assaults’ as described in Section 3 read with Sub-Section (m) of Section 5 of the POSCO Act, 2012 and Section 376-AB read with Sub-Section (a) of Section 376 IPC. The accused shall either be liable for punishment under Section 6 of POSCO Act or section 376-AB of IPC in terms of Section 42 of POSCO Act.

29. Considering the submissions of the learned counsels and the convict, and also the fact that the convict is uneducated, born and brought up in a remote village where public awareness level is low, a first time offender with familial responsibility, he had no wife or children at present, and at the same time, seriousness of the offence and the resultant misery he caused to an innocent girl of less than 12 years, this court sentences the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- by opting the provisions of Section 6 of POSCO Act instead of Section 376-AB IPC due to the mitigating circumstances aforementioned. In default, imprisonment for another one month.”

2. Brief facts of the case essential for disposal of the appeal is that an FIR was lodged by Sh. V.L Siama, father of the prosecutrix at Lungsen Police Station on 24.04.2019 stating that his daughter, who was below 12 years of age on 01.04.2019 was wrongfully confined and raped by the appellant in Lungsen. The delay in filing the FIR was due to late revelation of the incident by his daughter. He, therefore, requested that appropriate legal action be taken against the appellant. Accordingly, the FIR was registered at Lungsen P.S Case No. 2 on the same day under Sections 376 AB/341 IPC and also under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The case was taken up for investigation by the appointed Investigating Officer (I.O) who recorded the statements of the complainant and arrested the appellant while he also recording his statements. The I.O also seized the birth certificate of the alleged victim which indicated that she was born on 17.05.2007. After the judicial statements of the alleged victim was recorded and she medically examined, the I.O finding a prima facie case against the appellant under Section 376/341 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act filed the charge-sheet. Charge was framed against the appellant under the aforesaid sections of law on 26.08.2019 by the learned Trial Judge and the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, trial against the appellant commenced. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 prosecution witnesses and the alleged victim was examined as Court witness. Upon completion of the prosecutions’ evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) and in response to the questions put to him, he denied having committed the offence of rape upon the prosecutrix. He also wanted to examine witnesses in his defence and accordingly, 2 (two) witnesses were examined as defence witness.

3. Thereafter, upon conclusion of the evidence of the rival parties and upon hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned Judgment & Order of conviction and the order of sentence in the manner as already abstracted above.

4. We have heard Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the evidence of the doctor, who conducted the medical examinations of the v