Conviction in sexual offences can rest solely on the victim's testimony if found credible; however, inconsistencies in evidence may lead to an acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Mizoram as well as Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, the learned Legal-aid-counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 (informant).

2. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the appellant, Shri Tommy Lalbiakmawia, impugning the judgment and order dated 26.10.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court, (POCSO) in Sessions Case No. 113/2019, arising out of Criminal Trial No. 1908/2019.

3. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10(ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 3(three) years.

4. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that, on 23.07.2019, one R. Lalngilneihi, had lodged an FIR before the Officer- in-charge of Serchhip Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on 22.07.2019, in between 10:00 PM to 12:00 Midnight, the appellant raped the daughter of the elder sibling of the informant (hereinafter referred to as “X”). It is further stated in the FIR that the “X” was raped twice inside the Maruti-800 vehicle by the appellant near the Mat River, about 13 kilometers away from Sailam.

5. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the Officer-in-charge of Serchhip Police Station registered Serchhip P.S. Case No. 38/2019 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and entrusted Ms. Melody Lalmuanpuii, SI to investigate the case. During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the victim girl and other witnesses. She also arranged the victim to be examined under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Judicial Magistrate and also got medical examination of the victim as well as the accused (appellant). Ultimately, on completion of the investigation, the charge- sheet was laid against the appellant Shri Tommy Lalbiakmawia under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

6. The appellant was released on bail on 25th of October, 2019 and he faced the trial remaining on bail. On 14th of February, 2020, the Trial Court, after considering the materials on record and after hearing both sides framed the charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the appellant. When the said charge was read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. Though, 10(ten) prosecution witnesses were enlisted in the charge- sheet, however, to bring home the charge against the appellant, the prosecution side, examined only four witnesses, including the victim girl. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 during which he pleaded his innocence and denied the truthfulness of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. However, ultimately, on conclusion of the trial, by the judgment and order which has been impugned in the instant appeal, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the manner as already described in paragraph No. 3 of this judgment hereinbefore.

8. Before considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, let us go through the evidence which is available on record.

9. The PW-1, Miss Lalngilneihi, who is also the first informant, in this case has dep