The court upheld the conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault based on the victim's credible testimony, emphasizing that minor discrepancies do not undermine the overall reliability of her statements.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. C. Tlanthianghlima, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This appeal has put to challenge the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Special Court, POCSO Act, 2012, Aizawl in Sessions Case No. 36/2020 (Criminal Trial No. 679/2020), by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two months.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR was submitted by the mother of the victim, who is the Prosecution Witness No. 1 (PW-1) on 20.10.2019, stating that her daughter of 11 years had been raped by the appellant during September, 2019 and the beginning of October, 2019 in their residence.Moreover, the appellant had also touched the victim’s private parts many times.

4. Pursuant to the FIR, the Mamit Police Station registered Mamit PS Case No. 0/2019 dated 20.10.2019 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. However, the same was thereafter re-registered under the Kawrthah Police Station as Kawrthah PS Case No. 47/2019 dated 01.11.2019. In pursuant to the FIR, the investigation into the allegation of rape was initiated and the victim was sent for medical examination on 21.10.2019, wherein the Doctor opined that the hymen perineum of the victim was ruptured.

5. The appellant was also arrested on 20.10.2019 and after completion of the investigation, the second I.O, PW-8 submitted the charge-sheet, having found a prima facie case under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the appellant.

6. Charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was framed against the appellant for having committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim, to which the appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, 7 prosecution witnesses and 2 defence witnesses were examined by the learned Trial Court.

7. The appellant was thereafter examined under Section 313 CrPC, where he denied the evidence adduced against him. The learned Trial Court thereafter came to a finding that the appellant had committed the offence under Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act and was thus liable to be punished under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentence was imposed him, as stated earlier.

8. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant submits that the testimony of the victim is not reliable, as the victim had stated in her statement given under Section 164 CrPC on 22.10.2019 that the sexual assault on her by the appellant, had taken place only twice. However, in her testimony before the learned Trial Court, the victim had stated that the sexual assault on her had taken place many times. He also submits that in the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC, the victim had stated that the offence took place inside the house, while in her testimony before the Trial Court the victim had stated that the offence sometimes took place outside the house also. Thus, there is discrepancies in her statement and she could not be said to be a sterling witness, on the basis of which conviction could be made.

9. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the victim and the other Prosecution Witnesses have not made a mention of any specific date, month or year, when the alleged offences had taken place. Further, as per the evidence of PW-4, the victim was in Buannel Children’s Home, Mamit during the year 2019. As such, the victim could not have been raped in her parent’s house during the year 2019, if the victim was living in a children’s home. He also submits that Section 27 of the POCSO Act had been violated, inasmuch as, a male Doctor had examined the victim, while the law required t