IMPORTANT POINT
The testimony of a minor victim can be sufficient for conviction under the POCSO Act if it is credible, regardless of the victim's prior sexual history.

JUDGMENT

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. K. Remruatfela, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and Mr. C. Tlanthianghlima, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2.

[2.] This is an appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Court of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Special Court, POCSO Act , 2012, Aizawl in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2022 arising out of Criminal Trial No. 713 of 2022, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act , 2012 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (3) months.

[3.] The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR was submitted by the informant (PW-1), who is the mother of the victim girl on 14.02.2022, before the Officer-in- Charge, Serchhip Police Station. The FIR stated that during the year ending 2017, the daughter of the informant had been raped by the appellant at night in their house at Darnam village. The FIR also stated that the victim was only 11 years of age at that time and the appellant had slept with her more than ten (10) times since then. The last time the appellant slept with the victim was in December, 2021, just before Christmas. The victim girl was afraid of telling the informant what had happened to her, since the appellant had threatened to kill her, if she disclosed the rape. However, the victim told her boyfriend Zohmangaiha who was 19 years of age, about the incident and when Zohmangaiha came from Lunglei on 12.02.2022, he informed the informant about the same. Pursuant to the FIR, Serchhip P.S Case No. 14/2022 dated 14.02.2022 was registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act . The S.I of police thereafter started the investigation and had the victim and the appellant, both examined by medical doctors. The victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.PC was also recorded on 29.03.2022. After taking the statements of the witnesses the I/O filed the charge sheet, on the ground that a prima facie case was found established under Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the appellant.

[4.] The learned Trial Court thereafter framed charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act , 2012 against the appellant, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined seven (7) prosecution witnesses. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and the learned Trial Court having come to a finding that the appellant had committed the offense under Section 5 (m) of the POCSO Act , 2012, the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced, as reflected in the earlier part of this Judgment & Order.

[5.] The counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant never raped the victim and that the evidence of the victim clearly showed that it was actually Zohmangaiha, who was the boyfriend of the victim, who had raped the victim. He also submits that there was enmity between the appellant and the mother of the victim, inasmuch as, the cross-examination of the informant (PW-1) showed that the appellant had caught the informant (PW-1) while she was having sexual affairs with others. On being reprimanded, the informant got angry with the appellant.

[6.] The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim was having a loose morale character even while being a minor, as she had admitted in her testimony that she had a boyfriend with whom she was having a sexual relationship. As such, the victim cannot be said to be a sterling witness and the evidence given by such a victim cannot inspire the confidence of the Court. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of