JUDGMENT :

Nelson Sailo, J.

Heard Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This is an appeal from jail filed by the appellant against the Judgment & Order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012, Lunglei, Mizoram convicting him under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six) months.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that an FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge of Lawngtlai Police Station on 20.11.2017 by one Smt. R. Lalthianghlimi (complainant) to the effect that the daughter of her elder sister, who was aged 14 years was raped by her step-father (the instant appellant) ever since she was 11 years old from the year 2014. The last incident occurred during the latter part of October, 2017. The appellant threatened her niece (the victim) not to reveal to anyone about the incident and he threatened to kill her, her mother and her younger siblings if she revealed to anyone about the incident. She however revealed the incident to the paternal aunt of the complainant on the night of 13.11.2017. In this regard, the family after discussing about the matter decided to lodge the FIR. The complainant also stated that the FIR could not be lodged sooner since they stayed at a far off place. The appellant was a resident of Kawlchaw village and he raped the victim at home and also in the forest. As such, the complainant requested that necessary action may be taken.

4. As a result, LTI P.S Case No. 72/2017 dated 20.11.2017 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was registered and investigated into. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer, having found a prima facie case well established against the appellant submitted the Final Report/Charge-sheet No. 10/2018 on 09.02.2018 before the Court. Thereafter, charge was framed against the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act to which, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. As such, trial commenced and the prosecution examined as many as 8 (eight) prosecution witnesses while the defense examined only 1 (one) defense witness. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 CrPC and after the parties were heard, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned Judgment & Order and the Sentence Order convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as already stated herein above.

5. Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned Amicus Curiae submits that there were no eye witnesses to the alleged crime and that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. As such, the impugned Judgment & Order and the Order of Conviction are vitiated and liable to be set aside. Referring to the deposition of DW-1 (mother of the victim), the learned Amicus Curiae submits that the victim started residing with them at Kawlchaw from Class-VI onwards. Before that, she was with them when she was 7 years of age for a short while and then she went back to her father’s house at Lawngtlai, where she had also resided earlier. The father of DW-1 was serving with the Mizoram State Transport and therefore, was posted at different towns. Therefore, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that there is no surety and prove that it was the appellant who committed the alleged crime. She also submits that from the evidence of DW-1, it can be clearly seen that DW-1 denied of having taken the victim to the Doctor at BRTF Camp for pregnancy test. She also did not purchase any drugs to terminate the pregnancy and her husband also did not instruct her to purchase any drugs. Therefore, there are no materials to implicate the appellant to the alleged crime.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae further submits that the filing of the FIR is an afterthought as there is considerable delay in