A conviction for sexual assault on a minor can be based solely on the victim's testimony, even with minor inconsistencies, and should not be dismissed due to procedural delays in reporting.

JUDGMENT :

(Michael Zothankhuma, J.)

Heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned Amicus Curiae for respondent No. 1/accused.

2. This appeal has been filed against the Judgment & Order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the Special Court, POCSO Act, Lunglei in Criminal Trial No. 333/2017, by which the respondent No. 1 has been acquitted of the charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The appellant’s case is that, an FIR was submitted by the Prosecution Witness No. 1 (PW-1), who was the mother of the victim child, who had been alleged to have been raped by the respondent No. 1 on 03.07.2017 between 5:30 p.m and 7:00 p.m. The victim was 5 years old.

3. The FIR which was lodged on 05.07.2017, was registered by Lunglei Police and a case was registered as Lunglei P.S case No. 96/2017 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The victim was sent for medical examination on 05.07.2017, wherein the Doctor’s Medical Examination Report stated that there was a tear in the hymen of the victim at 4 O’clock position. The I.O. after having concluded the investigation submitted a charge-sheet, on finding a prima facie case against the respondent No.1 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

4. The learned Trial Court framed a charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the respondent No. 1 stating that the respondent No. 1 had on 03.07.2017 sexually assaulted the victim, by inserting his finger and penis into the private parts of the victim and was thus liable to be punished under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The respondent No. 1 pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

5. During the trial proceedings, ten (10) Prosecution Witnesses were examined by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein he was asked as to whether he had laid the victim on the table, took off her underwear and committed sexual intercourse with her. The respondent No. 1 denied having laid the victim on the table, taking off her underwear and committed sexual intercourse upon her.

6. The only question put to the respondent No. 1/accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC and the answer to the same by the respondent No. 1 is reproduced herein below as follows:-

“Q. No. 1. The evidence against you is that on 03.07.2017 in the evening, the victim Lalramchhani and her family visited you. After they left for home, the victim alone returned to your residence. You let her lying on the table, took off her underwear and committed sexual intercourse with her. What do you have to say?

Ans: On the alleged day of the incident i.e. 03.07.2017 I had gone out to work with the father of victim for the whole day and return home late at about 6:00 pm due to rain. I am in good terms with the family of victim and had intention of living together at their residence. Many of my belongings were already shifted to their house before the alleged incident. On the day of incident I was packing my other belongings and the father, mother and victim had also come to my residence to help me out. I did not commit any offence against the victim. In fact it was the mother of victim who left my residence last and locked the door after I had departed for their residence along with my belongings. My residence is very bare and there is no table in my residence. There is only one long chair and one school table in my residence at the time of alleged incident.”

7. The learned Trial Court, in the impugned Judgment and Order, made an observ