Testimony of a victim in sexual assault cases holds significant weight, often sufficient for conviction, especially when bolstered by medical evidence, dismissing concerns over FIR filing delays.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

Heard Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned Amicus Curiae appearing 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 directed 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, Mizoram, (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”) in case No. FTSC (CPI) POCSO:65/2023, arising out of Crl. Trl. No. 248/2023, registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 (ten) years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) only, in default of payment of the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 2 (two) months.

3. The brief fact of the prosecution case is that PW-1 lodged an FIR on 02.06.2023, before the Officer-in-charge of Dungtlang Police Station, alleging, inter alia, that during the year 2018, the accused/appellant called his daughter, who was 9 years old, to his home during the afternoon and had sexual intercourse with her on his bed. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the accused/appellant inserted his penis inside the vagina of his daughter and that she said that she was bleeding from her vagina during the process. It is further alleged that the accused/appellant had also invited his younger daughter to his home during the year 2021 and took off her clothes and brushed his penis on her vagina that day. Accordingly, a case was registered being Dungtlang P.S. Case No.12/2023 dated 02.06.2023, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, read with Section 376 AB of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation, wherein the statement of the victim as well as the statement of the other witnesses had been recorded, and the victim was sent for medical examination. After collection of the Medical Report and completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was submitted. Thereafter, the trial Court framed charges under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and the trial commenced. During the trial, the prosecution examined 7 (seven) prosecution witnesses. After the closure of the prosecution witnesses, the accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), 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 defence evidence, and hearing both the sides, 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 F.I.R., was 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 F.I.R. 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 Additional 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 POC