Conviction under the POCSO Act can be based solely on credible testimony of the victim; delay in FIR is not grounds for acquittal if satisfactorily explained.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

Heard H. Zodinsanga, learned Amicus Curiae 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 preferred 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, Champhai in Case No. FTSC(CPI) POCSO: 60/2023 arising out of Crl.Trl. No. 192/2023 (Dungtlang P.S. Case No. 14/2023) registered under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, by which the accused/appellant has been convicted under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of 1 (one) year with a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) only, in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a term of 15 (Fifteen) days.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that PW-1 lodged an FIR on 02.06.2023 alleging inter-alia that in the year 2018, the accused/appellant called her daughter, who is about 6 years old inside his home and thereafter, took off her pant and underpant and as her daughter cried, he let her go without touching her further. Accordingly, a case was registered under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the investigation commenced. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer, PW-7 after completing the investigation, submitted the Charge-sheet. The Trial Court, upon receipt of the Charge-sheet, was pleased to frame charged against the accused under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. During trial, the prosecution examined 6 (six) Prosecution Witnesses including the victim. After the closure of the Prosecution Witnesses, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC 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 evidence, 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 FIR is 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 FIR. 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 Addl. 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 POCSO Act, it is nothing unusual for the victim to finally reveal the alleged sexual assault after a considerable length of time. She further submits that it is the sole testimony of the victim girl which in such cases is to be scrutinized properly so as to inspire the full confidence of the Court before acting on such testimony alone for convicting the accused person. In support of the aforesaid submission, she relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court in the case of:-

(i) State of U.P. Vs. Pappu Alias Yunus and Another , reported in (2005) 3 SCC 594.

(ii) Just Rights For Children Alliance and Another Vs. S. Harish and Others , reported in 2024 SC Online SC 2611.

(iii) State of Mizoram Vs. Sh. Lalramliana & Another in Crl.A.No. 9/2019.

(iv) Lok Mal Alias Loku Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , reported in (2025) 4 SCC 470.

6. Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the version of the prosecutrix is unchallenged by the accused/appellant and therefore, the same is sufficient alone for maintaining the conviction against the acc