Point of Law: It is a settled law that victim of a sexual assault is not treated as accomplish and as such her evidence does not require corroboration from any other evidence if her sole testimony inspires confidence and trustworthy.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent; Mr. K. Saxena, learned Amicus Curiae for the victim; and Ms. T. Y. Bhutia, learned counsel for the informant.

1. This is an application filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned and judgment and order dated 22.08.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Tezu, in POSCO Case No. 05(LDV)/2021, corresponding to Roing P.S Case No. 22/2021, whereby, the appellant, namely, Aka Kalung, has been convicted under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and vide order dated 30.08.2022, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10(ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-and in default of payment to undergo further Simple Imprisonment of 2(two) months.

2. The appellant/convict is presently undergoing sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment since 22.08.2022, in the District Jail, Tezu, in pursuant to impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Tezu, in POSCO Case No. 05(LDV)/2021.

3. The brief facts of the case of the appellant is that on 01.03.2021, the appellant had filed a missing report before the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Roing, to the effect that the victim has been missing since 9.00 A.M. of 28.02.2021. But, subsequently on 02.03.2021, the victim was recovered and handed over to the Child Line, Roing and thereafter, she was shifted to Child Care Institute standing under the name and style of Nani Mariya Child Care Institute, Roing and since then, victim is residing in the said Institution.

4. After recovery of the said victim child, the appellant approached the Child Care Institute, Roing, to bring back the victim along with him, but the said Institution denied to send the victim along with the appellant and for which, there was a heated argument with the Member of the CWC, Roing, and thereafter, to the utter surprise of the appellant, an F.I.R. was lodged before the Superintendent of Police, Lower Dibang Valley District, Roing, against the appellant on 22.03.2021, by the Members of the CWC, Roing, with the allegation that the appellant had committed the offence of sexual abuse and molestation against the victim during her stay with the appellant. On the basis of the said F.I.R., a case was registered before the Roing Police Station, being Roing P.S. Case No.22/2021, under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code readwithSection 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. In pursuant to the said registration of the case, the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and filed Charge-Sheet against the present accused/appellant vide Charge-Sheet No. 23/2021, dated 27.04.2021, under Section 376(2)(f)/376(3) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. However, the charges under Sections 370(10)(b)/370(4) of the Indian Penal Code were dropped at the time of filing the Charge-Sheet.

5. During the course of investigation, the victim was produced before the Court of learned CJM, Roing, on 25.03.2021, for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. But, in the said statement, the victim never disclosed or complaint about any sexual assault against her by the appellant at any point of time.

6. During the trial of the case, the prosecution examined as many as 6(six) witnesses including the Medical Officer, the victim and the I.O., though 10(ten) numbers of prosecution witnesses were cited in the Charge-Sheet. On the other hand, the defence side examined the witness, namely, Mrs. Kalum Joya, as DW-1, and one Court witness was also examined by the Court and after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both sides, the accused/appellant was convicted under Section 376(2) (f) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 (1) of the POCSO Act, vide Judgment dated 26.08.2022, and vide order dated 30.08.2022, the appellant was