JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.H. Borbhuiya learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mary L. Khiangte, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Champhai, in FTSC (CPI) 42/2022, arising out of Criminal Trial No. 75/2022.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR dated 16.03.2022 was submitted by Prosecution Witness No. 1 (PW-1), who is the mother of the victim. The FIR stated that the appellant had raped the victim on two occasions, once on 15.02.2022 and the second time during the beginning of March, 2022, inside the house of one Mr. Vanlalnghaka. Pursuant to the FIR, Khawzawl P.S. Case No. 13/2022 was registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

4. An investigation was initiated wherein the victim was taken for medical examination and the witnesses were examined by the IO. On finding a prima facie case against the appellant, the IO submitted a charge-sheet on 27.05.2022 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Thereafter charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was framed against the appellant by the learned Trial Court.

5. The learned Trial Court examined 7 (seven) prosecution witnesses and 6 (six) defence witnesses during trial. After examining the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, vide judgment and order dated 11.11.2022 and sentenced the appellant to undergo 20 (twenty) years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months.

6. The counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence given by DW-6, who is a minor friend of the victim, is to the effect that the victim had told her while playing that the appellant did not rape her. However, as the victim’s parents had already made a complaint before the police saying that the victim had been raped by the appellant, the victim told DW-6 that the victim was going to go along with the complaint made, despite knowing the same to be a false accusation. He further submits that the medical examination and the evidence given by the Doctor (PW-6) does not prove that the appellant had raped the victim. He submits that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge of rape alleged to have been committed by the appellant, as the evidence of DW-6 demolished the case of the victim girl. He accordingly prays that the impugned judgment should be set aside and the appellant acquitted of the charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of the victim (PW-2) has been corroborated by PW-1 (mother) and PW-3, who is a minor girl and a friend of the victim. She also submits that the evidence adduced during cross-examination of PW-3 and the evidence of DW-2 during cross-examination proved that the appellant had raped the victim. She accordingly prays that as no grounds for interfering with the impugned judgment and order having been made out, the appeal should be dismissed.

8. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

9. As stated earlier, the learned Trial Court examined seven prosecution witnesses and six defence witnesses.

10. The evidence of PW-1 is to the effect that her elder sister had informed her about the rape of her minor daughter. The elder sister of PW-1 had been informed by the mother of Lalhminghlui about the rape, as Lalhminghlui was a friend of the victim. PW-1 also stated that the information was passed on to her husband and when they had asked their victim daughter about it, the victim daughter stated that the appellant had raped her two times.

11. The evidence of PW-2, who is the victim, is to the effect that on 15.02.2022, while her friends and herself had gathered in the house of one friend Jessica for studying school lessons, she went to the house of the appellant to babysit his granddaughter. Ho