A conviction under the POCSO Act requires a formal charge; without it, any judgment rendered is erroneous. Proper examination procedures for the accused must be observed to ensure a fair trial.

JUDGMENT :

Shamima Jahan, J.

Heard Mr. Joseph L Renthlei, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant, Ms. Linda L Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Mizoram and Mr. C Tlanthianghlima, Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the informant.

1. This is a criminal appeal filed from Jail under Section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the Judgment & Order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the Fast Track Court, Kolasib District, in Sessions Case(K) No. 12 of 2019, under Section 376(2)(f) IPC read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (here-in-after shortly referred to as “the POCSO Act”).

BASIC FACTS

2. The prosecution story as unfolded is that the FIR was lodged by the informant stating inter alia that the victim, 8 years of age, complained of some pain in her private part during June, 2018 and when the informant asked her the reason as to why she was experiencing pain, she did not answer and as such, the informant took her to the Doctor and when the Doctor asked as to whether anyone had touched her private part, she at first did not reveal anything but on being forced, she finally told that her neighbor i.e. the appellant has touched her private part. On being informed, the informant as such lodged the FIR. The Police, on receipt of the said FIR, registered the same as Kolasib P.S Case No. 13/2019 dated 16.01.2019 under Section 376 (2)(f) IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. On completion of the investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant on 02.04.2019. Thereafter, the learned Judge, Fast Track Court after complying with of all the procedures, framed charges against the appellant under Section 376 (2)(f) of the IPC and the same was read over and explained to the appellant in his own language to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and the trial was conducted.

3. During the trial, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses including the Investigation Officer (I.O). Thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C and on completion of the trial, the learned Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of the payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for another period of 1 (one) month, u/s 6 of the POCSO Act.

ARGUMENTS

4. Assailing the impugned Judgment & Order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned Fast Track Court as mentioned above, Mr. Joseph L Renthlei, the Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant argued that in the instant case, the Doctor who examined the victim was not made a witness and that the same becomes fatal in the instant case. He also argued that the learned Trial Court, while recording the deposition of the victim did not examine the competency of the victim in understanding the nature of the case, since she was only 8 years old. The Amicus Curiae further argued that the appellant had admitted his guilt both during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C as well as in his judicial confession, recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C and further argued that in both the statements, the appellant had admitted that he had only touched the private part of the victim and nothing beyond. He also stated that although the victim in her statement before the Trial Court had sta