IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the testimony of a victim in sexual assault cases is vital and can be sufficient for conviction, provided it inspires confidence.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. T Lalzekima, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, Ms. Mary L Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2 (Informant).

2. This is an appeal from Jail filed by the appellant against the Judgment & Order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), Aizawl convicting him under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and thereafter, sentencing him vide Order dated 20.04.2022 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- with a default clause.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 29.01.2019, a FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Vaivakawn Police Station to the effect that on 27.01.2019, at around 12:00 PM, the accused/ appellant had sexually molested the victim and also on numerous occasions earlier. Therefore, the complainant sought for legal action against the appellant. Accordingly, Vaivakawn P.S Case No. 15/2019 dated 29.01.2019 was registered under Section 376 AB of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and investigated into. During the investigation, the appellant was arrested and his statements as well as the statements of other witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, upon the conclusion of the investigation, Charge Sheet No. 36/2019 was filed on 31.02.2019 by the Investigating Officer (IO) before the Court concerned and charge was framed against the appellant under Section 379 AB IPC, read with Section 9 of the POCSO Act on 09.04.2019. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried and therefore, trial was set to motion. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 (eight) prosecution witnesses (PWs) and they were cross examined by the defence. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein, he denied the questions put to him. The appellant on his part did not produce and examine any defence witness. After the parties were heard, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment & order convicting the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment for a term as already stated in the preceding paragraph. The appellant being aggrieved has filed the instant appeal from Jail. This Court, besides calling for the records from the Trial Court, appointed an Amicus Curiae and a Legal Aid Counsel to represent the appellant and the complainant respectively.

4. Mr. T Lalzekima, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the learned Trial Court at paragraph No. 3 of the impugned Judgment & Order recorded that PW-1 had seen the appellant having sexual intercourse with the daughter with her own eyes but the same is contrary to the evidence of PW-1 since she had only stated that she had seen the appellant sleeping with the victim and that his pants was removed up to his knees and so were the pants of the victim. However, she has nowhere stated that she had witnessed the appellant having sexual intercourse with the victim. Therefore, the narration of the events by the learned Trial Court is without any basis and misconceived.

5. Mr. T Lalzekima, learned Amicus Curiae further submits that the appellant in his appeal had stated that the case made out against him was only a fabrication in view of the fact that the complainant herself had affairs with other person and that in order to hide behind her mistakes, she made false allegations against the appellant. He has also stated that the learned Trial Court simply accepted almost the entire version of the victim which has resulted in the commission of injustice upon the appellant. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, had stated that on the day when the alleged incident was said to have occurred, he had gone to Aizawl during the Church service and he was dropped by his friend in his vehicle. He did not come back from Aizawl that day and he stayed back with one of his frie