JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Mizoram (Appellant) and also heard Mr. Joesph Lalchhanhima Renthlei, learned Amicus Curiae.

2. This appeal is preferred under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State of Mizoram against the judgment and order, dated 28.11.2017, in SC. Case No.139 of 2016, Crl. Trial No. 1260 of 2016, under section 6 of the POCSO Act, passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Aizawl District, Aizawl. It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned judgment and order the learned court below had convicted accused Sh. R. Vanlaltura, under section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ (Rupees one thousand) only, and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.

3. It is to be noted here that the respondent could not able to engage one Advocate and as such Mr. Joesph Lalchhanhima Renthlei, learned Advocate, Gauhati High Court Bar Association, Aizawl Permanent Bench, has been appointed as Amicus Curiae, to assist the Court.

4. The factual background leading to filing of this appeal is briefly stated as under:-

“On 02.06.2016, one Shri H. Lalmuankima, father of the victim girl, had lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge, Kulikawn Police Station to the effect that on 01.06.2016, at about 1 PM, accused Laltura has taken his daughter-Smti. X (name withheld) inside his house at Hlimen Venglai locality, and thereafter, he licked her private part and also inserted his finger. The incident was reported to his mother-in-law, by one of the friend victim, and then he came to know about the same and reported the matted to Kulikawn P.S. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the Officer-in-Charge Kulikawn Police Station had registered a case, being Kulikawn P.S Case No. 69/2016, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and endorsed S.I.-Mr. Lalhmechhmoni to investigate the same. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) then visited the place of occurrence, prepared sketch map of the same, and examined the witnesses, and seized the birth certificate of the victim preparing seizure list, and thereafter, he got the victim girl examined by Doctor and collected the report and also got her statement recorded in the court under section 164 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he had arrested the accused and forwarded him to the court. Upon completion of investigation he laid charge-sheet against accused R. Vanlaltura to stand trial in the court under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Accordingly, the accused is produced before the Court of the learned Special Judge, under POCSO Act, Aizawl. Thereafter, hearing the learned Advocates of both sides, the learned Court below has framed charge against the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and on being read and explained over the same to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the learned court below has examined as many as eleven witnesses, including the Medical Officer (M.O.) and the I.O. and after closing the prosecution witnesses, examined the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. And thereafter, hearing arguments of the learned Advocates on both sides, the learned Court below had found that instead of the offence under section 6 of the POCSO Act, an offence under section 8 of the POCSO Act is made out, and accordingly, convicted him under the said sections of law and sentenced him as aforesaid.”

5. Being highly aggrieved the State of Mizoram has preferred this appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the following grounds:-

(i) That, the learned court below had eared in law and in fact while passing the impugned judgment and order;

(ii) That, the learned court below had failed to appreciate the ingredients of section 6 of the POCSO Act and that even a slightest penetration is sufficient to attract the section and ignoring the same the learned court below has recorded c