JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the Judgment & Order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned Fast Track Court, Kolasib District, Kolasib in Sessions Case No. (K) 25/2017 arising out of Criminal Trial No. 339/2017 by which the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 month.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 20.06.2017 at around 4:30 p.m, a written FIR was lodged by Andrew Lalpekhlua s/o Lalthansanga (L) of Kolasib to the effect that during the year 2012, his youngest sisters (victim) was sexually assaulted by her stepfather and that he continued to have sexual intercourse with her since then for almost every day and against her will. As a result, Kolasib P.S Case No. 97/2017 dated 20.06.2017 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was registered and the case investigated into. Upon completion of the investigation, the investigating authority on finding a prima facie case under Section 6 of the POCSO Act to be well established against the appellant, submitted the charge sheet. Following the submission of the charge sheet, charge was framed against the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Accordingly, trial commenced against the appellant and during the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 6 prosecution witnesses. Upon completion of the prosecution’s evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC to enable him to explain the evidence that was led against him. However, the appellant did not have anything to say or have witness in his defence. In other words, his reply to the questions put forth was basically that of denial. Consequently, the Trial Court upon hearing the parties passed the impugned Judgment & Order convicting and sentencing the appellant in a manner as already stated herein above.

4. Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel submits that the arguments he would like to advance on behalf of the appellant are three fold. Firstly, POCSO Act became effective only from 14.11.2012 and since there is no specific date on which the alleged incident had happened apart from claiming that it happened in the year 2012, POCSO Act would not be attracted. Secondly, he submits that there is a huge delay in filing the FIR and that no explanation has been made for such delay and that the prosecutrix has not passed the test of sterling witness. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Thulia Kali -Vs- The State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 3 SCC 393 and Santosh Prasad ALIAS SANTOSH KUMAR -Vs- STATE OF BIHAR (2020) 3 SCC 443. Thirdly, he submits that the learned Trial Court passed the impugned Judgment & Order as well as the impugned sentence order on the same day and therefore, the same is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Allauddin Mian & Others Sharif Mian & Another -Vs- State of Bihar (1989) 3 SCC 5 and also as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sh. Thawngchungbik -Vs- State of Mizoram (2018) 1 GLR 482.

5. The learned counsel submits that although according to PW-1, they came to know about the sexual assault upon the victim by their stepfather in the year 2016 but the FIR was lodged only on 20.06.2017 without any explanation for the delay. PW1 who is the elder brother of the victim according to the learned counsel also stated that it was during the year 2012 that his stepfather had sex with his sister forcibly. There being no certainty about the exact date and on the other hand the POCSO Act having taken effect from 14.11.2012, the provisions of the POCSO Act cannot be applied to the instant case. The learned counsel further submi