IMPORTANT POINT
The testimony of a victim in sexual assault cases must be consistent and reliable; significant inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to an acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

MARLI VANKUNG, J.

Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the appellant along with Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This is an appeal against the Judgment & Order passed by the learned Special Court, POCSO Act, Lunglei Judicial District, Lunglei dated 20.03.2020 in Criminal Trial No.224 of 2018 reference Lunglei P.S. Case No.116/2018 dated 26.06.2018, wherein the appellant was convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and for sentenced to undergo 7 (seven) years Simple Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand) id SI for 1 (one) week.

3. Facts of the case in brief is that on 26.06.2018 at 11:10 AM a written FIR was received from the alleged victim who will be referred as ‘X’ henceforth (17) years by Lunglei Police Station, to the effect that in the month of March 2018, the present appellant had entered the house of the ‘X’ while her other family members were away. According to the ‘X’ ’s FIR, the appellant then pusher her down on a bed and sexually assaulted her by holding both her hands and had sex with her against her will and as a result, she requested the Police to take appropriate action against the present appellant. Hence, the Lunglei Police State Case No. 116 of 2018 dated 26.06.2018 U/s 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 was registered against the appellant. After the investigation was completed, a Chargesheet along with its annexures/enclosures was submitted before the Ld. Trial Court against the present appellant for trial. On framing charge under section 4 of POCSO Act, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

4. The learned Trial Court after hearing the deposition of 6 (six) prosecution witnesses examined the convict/appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein the convict appellant denied the evidence adduce against him and thereafter, the evidence of 3 (three) defence witnesses were also recorded. The learned Trial Court after considering the evidence on record and hearing both the parties convicted the appellant under Section 4 POCSO Act and sentencing to undergo S.I 7 years with a pay fine of Rs. 1000/-id one week. Aggrieved by this the instant appeal has been filed.

5. The learned counsel for the Mr. B. Lalramenga submits that there several grounds for setting aside the impugned Judge and order dated 20.03.2020.

Firstly, there is delay in filing of the FIR wherein the incident is said to have occurred during the month of March, however the FIR was filed in month of June i.e. 26.06.2018, no explanation has been given for the above delay in the FIR. The learned counsel also submits that there are many inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecutrix, however, the learned Court had relied on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. He submits that from the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC and the judicial statement recorded under 164 Cr.PC and also from her deposition recorded before the Court, several consistencies can be made out. The alleged victim girl in her deposition had mentioned the date of the incident as on 20.03.2018 however, this was never mentioned in her statement under 161 nor in her judicial statement recorded under 164 Cr.PC. In the judicial statement she mentions that the appellant had touch her chest, however in her deposition before the Court she says that the appellant had touched her breast. In her statement recorded under 164 Cr.PC she had mentioned that she was so frightened she could not scream and that their house was in a secluded place and no one could have heard her scream, however, during her cross-examination in the Court she had stated that she lived in her house with other people living below their house The alleged victim girl had also mentioned about a male friend to whom she had first disclose the incident and on his advised she had informed her mother in the early part of June. However, there is no mentioned about this male friend anywhere else in the deposition. In her