The consistent testimony of a minor victim, under the POCSO Act, can solely establish guilt even amidst minor discrepancies, highlighting the importance of reliability in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

Shamima Jahan, J.

Heard Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. Mary L Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Mizoram and Mr. Lalramdinthara, learned counsel for the informant.

1. This is a criminal appeal filed from Jail under Section 383 of the Cr.P.C against the Judgment & Order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Special Court, POCSO Act 2012, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, Mizoram in Sessions Case No. 70/2023 under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (here-in-after shortly referred to as “the POCSO Act”).

A. BASIC FACTS

2. The prosecution story as unfolded is that an FIR was lodged by the mother of the victim stating inter alia that her son, 17 years of age, was sexually molested by her neighbor i.e. the appellant ever since her son was 10 years old. She further stated that the appellant sexually molested him by making him suck his private part and that he makes their private parts brush each other and further that he would also often ejaculate on her son’s body. On receipt of the said FIR, the police registered the same as BKN-Police Case No. 432 of 2023, dated 12.07.2023 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act on 12.07.2023. After complying with the required procedures, the Special Judge, POCSO, Mizoram, Aizawl, framed the charge against the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and the same was read over and explained to the appellant to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and the trial was conducted.

3. During the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses including the Investigating Officer (I.O). Thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and on completion of the trial, the learned Special Court convicted the appellant mainly on the statement of the victim under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 20 years with a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of the payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo R.I. for another period of two (2) months.

B. ARGUMENTS

4. Assailing the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Court as mentioned above, Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, the Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant argued that the victim cannot be believed as it is in the evidence of the victim’s mother that he is in the habit of telling lies. He also argued that during his examination by the medical Doctor, the victim stated that the incident happened on 10.06.2023 and then he went on to say that he was sexually assaulted since he was 9 to 10 years old. Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga therefore states that there is discrepancy in the evidence on record. He further stated that the victim revealed that the accused was his neighbor which is also reflected in the sketch map prepared by the investigating agency and if that be the case, it cannot be said that over the years it was not known to anyone nor any suspicion arose regarding the offence. Furthermore, he deposed that Section 164 CrPC statement of the victim cannot be relied on, in view of the fact that statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C is not a substantive evidence. He placed the following decisions to substantiate his point.

(a) Sanglura vs. State of Mizoram & Anr., delivered in Crl. A. No. 4/2023.

(b) K. Venkateshwarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 8 SC