IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the victim's credible testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, suffices for conviction under sexual assault laws, despite minor contradictions.

JUDGEMENT :

(S.P. Khaund, J.)

1. Heard Mr Victor L Ralte, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellant, Ms Mary L Khiangte, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent No. 1/State of Mizoram and Mr Johny L Tochhawng, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2021 in SC No. 32/2019 A/o Crl.Tr.No.334/2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Special Court (Rape and POCSO Act), Aizawl Judicial District (hereinafter also referred to as the trial Court), convicting – ‘A’ -name withheld (hereinafter also referred to as the appellant or the accused), under Section 376 AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, for short) and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 years. An order was already passed to set off the custodial sentence with the period of detention already undergone by the appellant.

3. The genesis of the case was that an FIR was lodged by the victim’s mother, ‘Y’ (hereinafter also referred to as the informant), contending that on 06.11.2018, at about 02:00 pm, the informant’s son-‘Z’, who was only 9 years old at that time, informed her that he saw his father-‘A’ straddled atop the victim, who was 7 years old at the time of the incident. The informant is the victim’s mother and the appellant-‘A’ is the victim’s father. The informant lodged an FIR with the Police at Vivakawn Police Station and Vivakawn PS Case No. 183 of 2018 was registered under Section 376 AB of the IPC, read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act, for short) and investigation commenced. The Investigating Officer embarked upon the investigation. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and forwarded the victim for medical examination and for recording her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, for short). On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the appellant under Section 376 AB IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. At the commencement of trial, a formal charge under Section 376 AB IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act was framed and read over and explained to the appellant. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed innocence.

4. To connect the appellant to the crime, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 9 (nine) witnesses and the accused examined one witness in defence. In connection with the incriminating materials projected by the prosecution, several questions were asked to the appellant under Section 313 CrPC. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, has admitted that the victim is his daughter, but he has stated that this case against him has been fabricated. He has denied that he committed penetrative sexual assault on his daughter. He has admitted that he asked his son to lock the door, but he denied of having assaulted his daughter. He has admitted that he was inebriated at the time of the incident. He has contended that a false case has been brought up against him by his wife because at the time of the incident he was having an extra-marital affair and he was staying with another woman and thereafter, he came back to his wife, but after 4 months, his wife foisted this case against him.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE APPELLANT:-

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the charges framed against the appellant. It is submitted that while framing charge, the appellant was confronted with the question, whether he committed sexual assault on his 7 year old daughter and thereby committed an offence under Section 376 AB read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It is argued that while charges were framed, the appellant was charged with offence of sexual assault, but while the appellant was convicted, he was convicted for offence of penetrative assault, to his prejudice. Moreover, charge was framed and the attention of the appellant was