IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces the principle that in cases under the POCSO Act, the victim's testimony can be sufficient for conviction, especially when corroborated by medical evidence, and that the burden of proof shifts to the accused to disprove the presumption of guilt.

JUDGMENT :

Marli Vankung, J.

Heard Mr. S. Mow, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Ms. N. Danggen, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. The instant appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for setting aside the Judgment & Order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Khonsa in Khonsa Spl. (POCSO) Case No. 02/2021, convicting the accused/appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, i.d. S.I for 3 (three) months.

3. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that an FIR was filed on 09.12.2020 by the prosecutrix/victim before the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Longding to the effect that, on 06.12.2020 at around 9:00 PM, the accused/appellant along with his two friends had come to the residence of the informant searching for rice beer. Accordingly, the victim/prosecutrix prepared rice beer for them. After serving them rice beer, she went outside to clean utensils and while she was cleaning the utensils, the accused/appellant suddenly, got hold of her, forcefully closed her mouth with his hand and took her to the NH at Donbosco colony, where he forcibly raped her. She therefore requested that necessary should be taken against the accused/appellant.

4. On receipt of the FIR, a case vide Longding P.S. Case No. 55/2020, under Section 376 IPC r/w Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (hereafter mentioned as POCSO Act) was registered and the OC undertook the investigation. During investigation, the statements the victim and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The victim girl was also sent for medical examination and examination report was duly received. The I.O also visited the place of occurrence and drew the sketch map of the P.O. The biological samples and wearing apparels were sent to CFSL, Gauhati. Thereafter, the statement of the victim under Section 164 (5) Cr.P.C was recorded before the learned JMFC, Longding. The Birth Certificate of the victim was seized. The case I.O found primafaciecase against the accused/appellant under Section 376 IPC r/w Section 4 of the POCSO Act and filed the charge sheet on 08.02.2021 and sent the matter to the learned Judge, Special Court POCSO for trial. The learned Trial Court framed charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act to which the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7 (seven) prosecution witnesses. The accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defense witnesses were produced. The learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties and on considering the evidence adduced, convicted the accused/appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced the accused/appellant under imprisonment as mentioned in the above paragraphs. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

5. Mr. S. Mow, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned conviction and sentence order dated 21.06.2021 is liable to be set aside on the grounds that the delay of 3 (three) days in filing the FIR by the victim/prosecutrix has not been satisfactorily explained. The FIR clearly stated that the incident had occurred on 06.12.2020 at around 9:00 PM, while the FIR was filed on 09.12.2020. He also submitted that the PW-2 had deposed that the FIR was drafted by the uncle/ a relative of the victim/prosecutrix, however, the person who drafted the FIR was not made a witness in the case.

6. Mr. S. Mow, learned counsel further submitted that the depositions of the prosecution witnesses are not trustworthy and cannot be relied upon since the statements of the prosecution witnesses contradict each other and these inconsistencies in their statements make the prosecution case a