The court upheld the conviction under the POCSO Act, emphasizing the victim's age and the reliability of her testimony despite minor inconsistencies.

JUDGMENT :

(Marli Vankung, J.)

Heard Mr. C. Tlanthianghlima, learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Lalramdinthara, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred from jail against the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2023 passed by the Fast Track Special Court, POCSO Act, 2012, Aizawl in S.C. No. 17/2021, by which the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of 20 years and pay a fine of Rs 2000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed upon him, the appellant has filed the instant Criminal Appeal.

3. Brief facts of the case is that on 19.11.2020, the informant Mr. R. Lalmalsawma filed a written FIR stating that the accused/appellant Lalremruata had sexual intercourse with his daughter multiple times. The informant requested that action be taken against the accused/appellant, Lalremruata. An all women P.S. Case No. 47/2020 dated 19.11.2020, under section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was registered and duly investigated into. During investigation, the case IO visited the place of occurrence and also examined and recorded the statement of the witnesses. The victim was forwarded to the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Aizawl for necessary medical examination and the medical report revealed that the hymen of the victim girl was ruptured. The Birth Certificate of the victim was also seized, wherein the date of birth of the victim girl was shown as 18.02.2003, making her 17 years and a few months at the time of the incident. The accused/appellant on interrogation had also admitted that he had sexual intercourse with the victim. The case IO found prima facie case under Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the accused/appellant and submitted his charge sheet.

4. The learned Trial Court on 03.03.2021, framed charge against the accused/appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, to which the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. During trial, as many as 7 prosecutions witnesses were examined. The accused/appellant in his examination under Section 313 CrPC did not deny the evidence that on 18.11.2020, he had gone to the house of Shri. R. Lalsawmliana (informant, father of the victim) and stated that he had sex with the victim several times. The accused/appellant further explained that he did not know the age of the victim and that the victim had stated to him that she had attained the age of 18 years. Thereafter, accused/appellant produced 1 (one) defence witness. After considering the evidence on record and after hearing both the parties, the learned Trial Court found the accused/appellant guilty of the charge under Section 6 POCSO Act and accordingly, had sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, i.d to undergo R.I for 2 months. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the instant jail appeal.

Submissions made by the learned counsels:

5. Mr. C. Tlanthianghlima, learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant, submitted that the impugned Judgment & Order dated 13.11.2023 is liable to be set aside and quashed, since the statement of the prosecutrix is not reliable, wherein, in her deposition before the learned Trial Court, she had stated that the accused/appellant had sex with her more than 5 times at different places, however the prosecutrix could not mention the date, time or the month when the accused/appellant had sex with her. Further in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, she had stated that the accused/appellant got out from jail in April 2020 and resided next to their house, at her grandmother’s house and the first incident took place inside her grandmother’s bedroom against her will, post this he had raped her about four more times. However, in her examinati