The sole testimony of a minor victim in sexual assault cases can be sufficient for conviction if credible and corroborated by case circumstances; delay in FIR reporting does not diminish this credibility if satisfactorily explained.

JUDGEMENT & ORDER :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

Heard H. Zodinsanga, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/appellant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mizoram appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/informant.

2. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment & Order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer/Judge, Fast Track Special Court (Rape & POCSO Act, 2012), Champhai District, Champhai in Case No. FTSC(CPI) POCSO: 61/2023 arising out of Crl.Trl. No. 193/2023 (Dungtlang P.S. Case No. 15/2023) registered under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, by which the accused/appellant has been convicted under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of 5 (five) years with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) only, in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a term of 1 (one) month.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that PW-1 lodged an FIR on 07.06.2023 alleging inter-alia that in the year 2021, the accused/appellant called his daughter, who is about 9 years inside his home and took off her pant inside his bedroom and thereafter, he brushed his penis in and around the vagina of his daughter and he even applied his saliva on the vagina of his daughter and as his daughter resisted him, he did not proceed further. Accordingly, a case was registered under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation, wherein the statement of the victim as well as the statement of the other witnesses have been examined. After completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was submitted. Thereafter, the Trial Court framed charge under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the trial commenced. During trial, the prosecution examined 6 (six) Prosecution Witnesses. After the closure of the Prosecution Witnesses, the accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC where all the incriminating circumstances were put to him, which he generally denied, however, he adduced 2 (two) Defence Witnesses. After the closure of the evidence, the Trial Court pronounced its Judgment & Order on 22.04.2024, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted and sentenced thereof. Hence, the present appeal.

4. Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the FIR is filed after a gross delay from the alleged date of incident and that the prosecution has failed to give a reasonable explanation as regards the delay of filing of the FIR. He further submits that the age of the victim having not been proved, the conviction is vitiated.

5. Per contra, Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the victim girl in her deposition before the Court has clearly explained the delay for which the FIR was filed. She further submits that in cases relating to offences under the POCSO Act, it is nothing unusual for the victim to finally reveal the alleged sexual assault after a considerable length of time. She further submits that it is the sole testimony of the victim girl which in such cases is to be scrutinized properly so as to inspire the full confidence of the Court before acting on such testimony alone for convicting the accused person. In support of the aforesaid submission, she relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court in the case of:-

(i) State of U.P Vs. Pappu Alias Yunus and Another , reported in (2005) 3 SCC 594.

(ii) Just Rights For Children Alliance and Another Vs. S. Harish an