In sexual assault cases, the victim's testimony can suffice for conviction if reliable; however, significant inconsistencies can warrant acquittal due to benefit of doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Marli Vankung, J.

Heard Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. This is a jail appeal filed against the Judgment & Order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Champhai in Criminal trial No. 37/2023 wherein, the appellant was convicted u/s 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced vide Order dated 03.08.2023 to undergo R.I for a period of 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) in default Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months.

3. Brief facts of the case is that an FIR was filed by the informant on 22.10.2022 to the effect that from the year 2020, Mr. Lalroenga (appellant) of Hmunhmeltha, Champhai had sexual intercourse with his minor niece ‘X’ aged 13 years a multiple times. They came to learn of this incident when her grandmother and other relatives caught them sleeping together (an mu dun lai) inside their shop at New Champhai on 17.10.2022 at around 5 a.m. The case was registered as CPI-P.S Case No. 143/2022 dated 22.10.2022 u/s 6 of the POCSO Act r/w 376 AB IPC. During investigation of the case, the case I.O visited the P.O and examined the victim ‘X’ and other witnesses. The victim/’X’ was sent for recording of her statement u/s 164 CrPC and she was also forwarded to the Medical Officer, District Hospital, Champhai for medical examination. Her birth certificate was also seized wherein, her date of birth was recorded as 31.01.2009. The accused was arrested on 22.10.2022. On receiving the medical examination reported, the case I.O found Prima Facie case against the accused/appellant u/s 6 of the POCSO Act r/w 376 AB IPC and accordingly submitted the charge sheet and the case was sent for trial.

4. The learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Champhai framed charge u/s 6 of the POCSO Act r/w Section 376 AB IPC, against the accused appellant on 11.04.2023. The trial then commenced and as many as 5 prosecution witnesses were examined. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC and no defense witnesses were produced. On hearing the learned counsels for both the parties, the learned Trial Court found the accused/appellant guilty of the charged u/s 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a term as already noted above.

Aggrieved, the instant jail appeal is filed by the accused/appellant.

5. Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant, submitted that the learned Trial Court had convicted the appellant u/s 6 of the POCSO Act by relying on the sole testimony of the victim ‘X’ and the medical report but however, the testimony of the victim is not reliable because of the inconsistencies found in the deposition of the victim ‘X’ and her statements recorded u/s 164 CrPC. He submitted that her deposition was also inconsistent with the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses.

The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the victim ‘X’ had mentioned the date of the incident when the accused/appellant had supposedly committed sexual assault on her as 17.10.2022 but however, she has not mentioned the dates 20.10.2022 and 21.10.2022 which was mentioned by PW1, who is the complainant.