IMPORTANT POINT
Minor discrepancies in a victim's testimony do not negate the credibility of the evidence when supported by medical and DNA evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Marli Vankung, J.

Heard Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant along with Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondents and Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. This is a jail appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 24.08.2020 passed by the Court of Special Judge under POCSO Act, 2012, Aizawl in SC No. 17/2017 in connection with Crl.Tr. No. 186/2017, wherein the appellant was convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 7 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, i.d. to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one week vide Sentence Order dated 26.08.2020.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 26.09.2016, an FIR was received from the informant to the effect that her daughter aged 14 years went for a picnic with her friends at LAD Park, Lengpui. On that day, the taxi driver (accused) on the pretext of dropping her home took her to Buichali road and raped her inside his taxi. The informant had asked for the phone number of the taxi driver from their daughter’s friend. However, the taxi driver had refused to pick up his phone even though they made several phone calls. He brought their daughter home at around 1:30 AM and their daughter informed them of the incident. They prayed that the legal action should be taken against the person who had raped their daughter. Accordingly, the case was registered as Sairang PS Case No. 33/2016 dated 26.09.2016 under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. After due investigation, a prima facie case was found against the accused/appellant and an FIR was duly submitted for trial before the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Aizawl. On 26.09.2016, a charge was framed under Section 342 IPC r/w Section 4 of the POCSO Act, to which the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and asked for trial. During trial, as many as 13 prosecution witnesses were examined and the accused/appellant was examined under 313 CrPC. The accused prosecutrix also produced one defence witness. The learned Trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence, acquitted the appellant/accused of the charge under Section 342 IPC, however, the learned trial court convicted the accused/appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act on 24.08.2020 and sentenced him to undergo S.I for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, i.d. S.I for one week vide its Order dated 26.08.2020. Aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed.

Submissions made by the learned Amicus Curiae

4. Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned Amicus Curiae submits that there are sufficient grounds for setting aside the impugned Judgment & Order dated 24.08.2020 and the Sentence Order dated 26.08.2020 on the following grounds.

5. The learned counsel submits that on the reading of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC and on perusal of her deposition made before the Court, there are many discrepancies in the two statements and therefore, she is not a reliable witness. He submits that because of these discrepancies, the appellant should be given the benefit of doubt since a doubt has been created, whether the incident as narrated by her, had taken place or not. The learned counsel has pointed out that in her statement made under 164 CrPC, the prosecutrix had mentioned that three men were also in the taxi belonging to the appellant. He has also pointed out the difference in the place where they had drank liquor as per her statement made under 164 CrPC and her deposition. He further submits that the prosecutrix in her deposition had mentioned that the tire of the taxi got punctured and the appellant had repaired the punctured tire, which was not mentioned in the 164 statement. There is also a difference in the time when she was supposed to reach home.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae further submits that it was mentioned by PW No.7, that the blood sample of the appellant was drawn by Dr. C. Lalchhandama,