The testimony of a victim of sexual assault, if credible and consistent, is sufficient for conviction; delays in reporting a sexual offense may not be fatal.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

Heard Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/appellant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the informant/respondent No. 2.

2. This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the learned Fast Track Special Court, Rape & POCSO Act, 2012, arising out of FTSC(CPI) POCSO No. 15/2021 in SC No. 174/2017 in Crl. Trl. No. 1397/2017 dated 29.09.2021, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and sentenced thereof to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default, Simple Imprisonment for another one month.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the i.e. victim’s father the informant/PW-1, on 01.09.2017, lodged an FIR alleging, inter alia, that his daughter, i.e., the victim/PW-2, who is about 15 years old, had been sexually molested on 20.08.2017 by her grandfather, i.e., the accused/appellant, who touched her private part and even performed pelvic thrusts while lying upon her. It is further alleged that the victim/PW-2 informed him that the accused/appellant had sexually assaulted her from the moment she was studying in Class V. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer, i.e., PW-6, took up the investigation and recorded the statement of the victim/PW-2 and the informant and other witnesses and also arrested the accused/appellant and interrogated him. After completion of the investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet by Charge-sheet No. 51/2017 dated 14.09.2017 against the accused/appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Thereafter, the Trial Court framed charges against the accused/appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and, accordingly, commenced the trial. During the trial, the prosecution adduced a total number of six witnesses, including the victim/PW-2, wherein the accused/appellant, except for generally denying all the incriminating circumstances put before him under Section 313 Cr.PC, did not adduce any defence witnesses.

4. After completion of the aforesaid trial, the Trial Court convicted the accused/appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and sentenced thereof accordingly. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the present criminal appeal.

5. Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused/appellant, submits that though the alleged incident occurred in the year 2012, the FIR had been filed only in 2017, and hence, the delay that occurred in filing the FIR is totally fatal to the prosecution case, and hence, the impugned conviction and sentence is totally erroneous.

In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Thulia Kali Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1972) 3 SCC 393 .

6. He further submits that though in the FIR, the informant/PW-1 stated that the victim/PW-2 first informed to her friend and thereafter to relatives about the alleged incident and it was his sister who had thereafter informed him, however, none of these witnesses who have been reported by the informant to whom the victim/PW-2 has first reported the incident had been examined by the prosecution. He further submits that though the victim/PW-2 in her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC recorded before the Judicial Magistrate has stated that she had told her friend who later on told her mother about the incident, however,