IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the requirement for proper framing of charges and adherence to trial procedures, emphasizing the need for a fair and just trial.

JUDGMENT :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the Judgment & Order dated 09.08.2021 passed by the Court of Judge, Special Court, POCSO Act, in FPSC (CPI) POCSO 2/2021 arising out of AC No. 48/2015 arising out of Criminal Trial No. 496/2015, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of 15 years with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, i.d. of payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month.

3. The facts of the case in brief is that an FIR dated 05.11.2014 was submitted by the informant (PW-1), the mother of the victim to the OC, Ngopa Police Station. The FIR stated that her daughter (victim), a student of Class IV in Government Primary School, Saichal was raped by her teacher (the appellant), in the school class room and inside the office. The appellant inserted his finger inside her private parts and the victim was afraid of revealing the matter as the appellant had threatened her. Pursuant to the FIR, NOP PS Case No. 33/2014 dated 05.11.2014 under Section 376(2)(i)(k)/506 IPC r/w Section 6 of the POCSO was registered against the appellant. Investigation of the case was initiated and the victim was sent for medical examination. After concluding his investigation, the Investigating Officer having found a primafaciecase under Section 372(2)(i)(k)/506 IPC r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the appellant, charge sheet was submitted. The case was committed to the District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl.

4. The learned District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl thereafter framed charge under Section 376(2)(i)(k) IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case was then transferred to the District & Sessions Judge, Champhai, as Champhai Judicial District was thereafter carved out from the Aizawl Judicial District. The Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Champhai transferred the case for disposal to the Fast Track Special Court, (Rape & POCSO Act, 2012), Champhai, hereinafter referred to as the “FTSC”. Thereafter, the learned FTSC recorded the evidence of 13 prosecution witnesses and 2 defence witnesses. After examining the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the child was a victim of aggravated penetrative sexual assault as she was only 11 years at the time of the alleged incident. The appellant was found liable to be convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, as the offence committed by the appellant came within the provisions of Section 3 & Section 5 (m) of the POCSO Act, 2012. The learned Trial Court thereafter, as stated in the foregoing paragraphs, convicted the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him accordingly.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was an error in the judgment of the learned Trial Court in convicting the appellant in view of the fact that :-

1) the Baptismal Certificate relied upon by the prosecution to prove the age of the victim could not be admissible in evidence, inasmuch as, the certificate was apparently issued on 27.06.2023, while the date of birth of the victim was recorded therein as 19.02.2004,

2) that while charge had been framed under Section 376(2)(i)(k) IPC, the conviction and sentence of the appellant had been done under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012,

3) the form recording the examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was not signed by the Special Judge. He accordingly submits that the appellant should be acquitted of the charge framed against him and consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court should be set aside.

6. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the appellant is a habitual offender, as he had sexually molested a number of girl students of the s