The sole testimony of the prosecutrix can sustain a conviction under the POCSO Act if it inspires confidence, even with minor discrepancies.

JUDGMENT :

(MARLI VANKUNG, J.)

Heard Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mrs.Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondents and Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. This is an appeal filed against the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2021, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO Act), Lunglei District in Crl. Tr. No. 516/2020 (Ref. Lunglei P.S. Case No. 54/2020 dated 24.07.2020) wherein the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act on finding him guilty of committing the offence under Section (l) & (m) of Section 5 of the POCSO Act and thereby sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default the imprisonment for another period of one month.

3. Facts of the case in brief is that an FIR was lodged by the informant/prosecutrix on 24.07.2020 to the effect that during the year 2019, though she does not remember the date and time, the accused/appellant took her to a basement at Venghlun, Lunglei where he had sex with her. She had kept quiet because she was afraid. The FIR is filed for taking legal action against the person who had forcefully committed sexual assault. The case was registered as Lunglei, P.S. Case No. 54/2020 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act dated 24.07.2020. Thereafter, the case was investigated into and the case I.O. during investigation examined the informant and recorded her statement. She was sent for medical examination and was also sent for recording of her judicial statement before the JMFC. Her birth certificate was also seized. The accused was arrested and interrogated, his statement was also recorded. The case I.O. also examined the other prosecution witnesses. On receipt of the medical report, the case I.O. found prima facie case against the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and filed the chargesheet. The learned Trial Court framed charge against the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act,to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. During trial as many as 6 prosecution witness were examined. The accused on examination under Section 313 CrPC denied all the incriminating evidence adduced against him. 2 defense witnesses were also examined. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties, found the accused/appellant guilty of the charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo his term of imprisonment as already mentioned above.

4. Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Court had erred in convicting the appellant based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, which was not reliable and was contradictory with her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC and the evidence adduced by the other prosecution witnesses. The learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix had deposed about a previous statement made by her which is mixed up, since she do not mentioned the name of a person named Nunpuia with whom she was supposed to have had sex. The prosecutrix in her cross-examination, had mentioned that she was with the accused below the house of U Baby at about 8:00 pm and she had also admitted that the accused did not sleep in his room, but slept in the sitting room. The learned counsel submitted that contradicted with the deposition of PW-6 who had stated that the prosecutrix and the accused had came to their house at around 7:00 pm where they had a house warming party and further submitted that the prosecutrix was drunk at that time and the accused and the prosecutrix had left her house about 9:15 pm and left the house around 9:20 pm.PW-6 had further mentioned that he saw the accused and the prosecutrix entering the house of the accused together. It is also clear that the prosecutrix was drunk and had consumed liquor at the time of the incident.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that though the medical evidence shows that the hymen was torn