The testimony of the victim in sexual assault cases must be credible and reliable; delays and contradictions can undermine a prosecution's case, leading to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

(MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J)

1. Heard Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Ms. Emily L. Chhangte, the learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 (Father of the victim).

2. This appeal has been registered on receipt of a petition of appeal from the appellant, namely, Sh. H. Lalhruaitluanga, through the Superintendent of Central Jail, Aizawl, where the appellant is presently serving out his sentence.

3. As the appellant was not represented by any counsel, hence, this Court by order dated 25.10.2024 had appointed Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu as Amicus Curiae to represent the appellant.

4. In this appeal the appellant has impugned the judgment dated 28.06.2023 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court (POCSO), Aizawl in Sessions Case No. 26/2022 (Criminal Trial No. 252/2022).By the said judgment, the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

5. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant Appeal, in brief, are that on 14.12.2021, the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of All Women Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that in the month of July 2020, the appellant, namely, Sh. H. Lalhruaitluanga, who is the son of the paternal aunt of the victim girl, had committed forceful sexual intercourse with her at his residence on two occasions. It is also stated in the FIR that as the victim was scared of the appellant, there was a delay in lodging of the FIR.

6. On receipt of the said FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of All Women Police Station had registered All Women Police Station Case No. 58/2021 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and initiated the investigation. Ultimately, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the above-named appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

7. The appellant faced major portion of the trial by remaining in custody, he was released on bail on 29.08.2022. On 23.03.2022, the charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was framed against the appellant. When the same was read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. To bring home the charge against the appellant, the prosecution side examined as many as seven prosecution witnesses. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 during which he admitted of having sexual intercourse with the victim girl on two occasions in his home. He adduced evidence of one defence witness in his defence.

9. Ultimately, by the judgment and order which has been impugned in this appeal, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the manner as has been described in the paragraph No. 5of this judgment herein before.

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

11. The PW-1, who is the victim girl (hereinafter referred to as 'X') has deposed before the Trial Court on 26.05.2022. In her deposition she has stated that her date of birth is 07.08.2002. She has also deposed that she was having a boyfriend who was trying to have physical relationship with her but she didn’t want the same. She told this fact to her friend Tetei, who is the girlfriend of the present appellant. She has also deposed that on a day in the month of July 2020(she does not remember the exact date), the appellant called her to his hous