JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

2. This appeal from Jail filed by the appellant is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 08.05.2018 and the Order dated 09.05.2018 passed by the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012, Siaha, Mizoram in SR No. 3/2018 by which, the appellant was convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and then sentenced to undergo 8 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- with a default clause respectively.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant was alleged to have been committed penetrative sexual assault upon the victim, who was a minor girl aged 14 years on the night of 17.10.2017 inside the motor workshop at Meisatla along with NH-54, Siaha. An FIR was lodged by the informant on the same day before the Officer-in-Charge of Siaha Police Station. As a result of the FIR, the appellant was apprehended from his residence and was forwarded to the Medical Officer, Siaha for medical examination. In his deposition before the Police, the appellant stated that he and the victim were lovers and that he did not know the age of the victim and he never asked her age as well. He also stated that he and the victim had sex twice out of love. As for the victim, she stated before the Investigating Authority that she and the appellant had sex on free-will and there was no compulsion or use of force. They had sexual intercourse on 14.10.2017 and thereafter, on 17.10.2017. The investigation revealed that the victim was born on 04.08.2003 as per the birth certificate, while the appellant was found to be aged 19 years. Upon finding a prima facie case under Section 4 of the POCSO Act to be well established against the appellant, charge-sheet No. 124/2017 dated 27.11.2017 was submitted by the Police before the Court.

4. Charge against the appellant was framed under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. As a result, Trial commenced against the appellant. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 (eight) prosecution witnesses including the victim while the defence examined as many as 4 defence witnesses. After the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and upon hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and the order of sentence as already stated herein above against the appellant.

5. Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Amicus Curiae submits that from the statement of the victim, it can be seen that she had fallen in love with the appellant since October 2017 and that they had consensual sex on 14.10.2017 and on 17.10.2017. The victim hesitantly revealed about this fact to the complainant, who is her grandfather after he threatened to beat her. The learned Amicus Curiae further submits that in the re-cross examination, the victim also stated that she replied back to the love letter written to her by the appellant from Jail. He, therefore, submits that the sexual intercourse between the victim and the appellant being consensual, the conviction and sentence impugned upon the appellant should be set aside. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the appellant at the relevant time was studying in class-12 and was 19 years of age. He has no previous conviction or criminal record and therefore, the conviction should be interfered with or the sentence modified as his future prospects is adversely being affected. In support of his submission, he relies upon the following authorities:

(i) Judgment and Order dated 27.10.2022 rendered by the High Court of Meghalaya in Criminal Petition No. 45 of 2022, Shri Silvestar Khonglah and Another vs. State of Meghalaya and Another.

(ii) Judgment dated 12.05.2020 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 8/2019, J.S. Robert Nohro vs. State of Mizoram.

6