IMPORTANT POINT
The Court established that minor inconsistencies in testimony do not necessarily undermine a victim's credibility, especially in cases involving minors under the POCSO Act.

JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1. None appears for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 despite notice.

2. This is an appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 09.03.2023, passed by the Court of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Special Court, POCSO Act, Aizawl in S.C No. 14/2020 corresponding to Criminal Trial No. 257/2020, by which, the appellant was convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of twenty (20) years.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 25.09.2019, a written FIR was received from the respondent No. 2 by Vaivakawn Police Station to the effect that the victim, aged 15 years, who was studying in Class-VIII at Helen Lowry School, had been raped by the appellant inside his shop named ‘LCT Pharmacy’ located at Vaivakawn, Aizawl. As such, Vaivakawn P.S Case No. 149/2019 dated 25.09.2019, under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, was registered and the case investigated upon. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer, finding a prima facie case established against the appellant, under the aforementioned Sections, filed the charge sheet. Following the same, charge was framed against the appellant, under the said Sections of law, by the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Aizawl and to which, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. Accordingly, trial was conducted and during which, the prosecution side had examined as many as seven (7) prosecution witnesses, including the prosecutrix. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, and apart from cross-examining the prosecution witnesses, the appellant did not lead any defense evidence. Upon conclusion of the trial and after hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as already indicated herein above.

4. Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel submits that the alleged incident was said to have happened on 10.09.2019, but the FIR was lodged only on 25.09.2019. He submits that there is no explanation as to why there was delay in filing the FIR. He submits that such delay only leads to exaggeration of the version of the complainant and in appropriate cases, such delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Even in the instant case, since there are no explanation either in the FIR or in the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, the impugned Judgment & Order of conviction and sentence, cannot be sustained and should be set aside even on this ground alone. In this connection, the learned counsel relies upon the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582 and Manirul Islam Vs. State of Assam & Anr. 2021 (3) GLT 128.

5. Mr. B. Lalramenga, the learned counsel by referring to the evidence of PW Nos. 1 & 3 amongst others submits that the victim herself, her mother and their other relatives did not want to file the FIR and instead wanted to move on. However, the teacher of the victim i.e., PW-3 and the complainant (PW-1) who is from the Child Line Team, had proceeded to file the FIR despite there being no intention on the part of the victim and her family. Considering the same, it cannot be ruled out that the victim might have been tutored by the said witnesses.

6. Mr. B. Lalramenga, the learned counsel by referring to the evidence of the PW Nos. 1 & 2, submits that there are contradictions in their depositions, particularly as to how the victim landed up in the pharmacy where the appellant was working. Likewise, there are further contradictions in the evidence of the Doctor (PW-4) who had examined the victim after the filing of the FIR. He submits that according to PW-4, the victim informed her during the medical examination that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with the victim several times before 10.09.2019. He therefore sub