JUDGMENT & ORDER :

Kaushik Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/appellant. Also heard Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. Emily L. Khiangte, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2/informant.

2] This appeal is presented against the Judgment & Order dated 13.08.2024, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Special Court, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”), in Session Case No. 76/2023, arising out of Criminal Trial No. 1444/2023, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (hereinafter referred to as the 'POCSO Act'), and sentenced thereof to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 (twenty) years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) months.

3] The brief facts of the case are that the President of Mizo Hmeichhe Insuihkhawm Pawl (MHIP), Sakawrtuichhun Branch, i.e., the informant/PW-1, lodged an F.I.R., on 08.06.2023, alleging, inter alia, that the victim, i.e., PW-2, who is aged about 13 years, was sexually molested from January 2020 to March 2020 by her own father, i.e., the accused/appellant. It is further alleged that the accused/appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim/PW-2 in their home around four times while she was just about 10 years old. Accordingly, a case was received and registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, read with 376 AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”).

4] Thereafter, the Investigating Officer, i.e., PW-9, upon being endorsed to investigate the case, examined the informant/PW-1, the victim/PW-2, and other witnesses, and also seized the Birth Certificate and produced the victim/PW-2 for medical examination as well as for recording her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”). Thereafter, she also arrested the accused/appellant, and after informing him of the grounds of his arrest, forwarded him for medical examination and also interrogated him. After completion of the investigation, she submitted chargesheet against the accused/appellant vide Chargesheet No.28/2023 dated 28.07.2023 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, read with Section 376 AB of the IPC. Thereafter, the Trial Court framed the charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, against the accused/appellant on 06.09.2023, and upon the accused/appellant pleading not guilty, the trial commenced.

5] During trial, the prosecution examined nine (9) prosecution witnesses, including the informant/PW-1, the victim/PW-2, and the Investigating Officer. After completion of the investigation, all the incriminating circumstances were put before the accused/appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein the accused/appellant simply stated that he does not remember whether he had sexual intercourse with the victim/PW-2 four times, as he was fully drunk during that time. However, the accused/appellant did not adduce any evidence.

6] After completion of the evidence and hearing, the Trial Court rendered its Judgment & Order, which is under appeal before this Court, whereunder the accused/appellant was held guilty of the offence charged and accordingly convicted and sentenced thereof. Situated thus, the present criminal appeal has been preferred.

7] Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned Amicus Curiae, submits that there is inconsistency as regards the time of the alleged occurrence. Though before the Judicial Magistrate, the victim/PW-2, during her 164 Cr.P.C., examination, said that it was from March 2020 to June 2020 when the alleged incident occurred; however, in her deposition before the Trial Court, she deposed that it was in the year 2020 in the months of January to March. He thus submits that in view of the aforesaid inc