The victim's credible testimony, coupled with medical evidence of injury, is sufficient for conviction under the POCSO Act despite minor contradictions in her statements.

JUDGMENT :

PRANJAL DAS, J.

1. Heard Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the convict appellant. Also heard Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Mizoram and Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2/informant.

2. The convict appellant, Mr. H. Lalfamkima has preferred the instant criminal appeal from jail against the Judgment & Order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, FTSC POCSO Act, 2012, Champhai, Mizoram in - Sessions Case No. 81/2017 [Crl. Trial No. 769/2017], arising out of Khawzawl P.S. Case No.16/2017 - by which, he was convicted under Section 4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act, 2012) and for such conviction, the convict appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I for 7 (seven) years and imposed with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, i.d. S.I for 1 (one) month.

3. On 21.02.2017, the informant, who is stated to be the father of the victim girl, submitted a complaint before the Khawzawl Police Station with the allegations that her 9 year old daughter was raped by the convict appellant belonging to Khawzawl Vengthar at Khawzawl Helipad. On the basis of the FIR, Khawzawl P.S. Case No. 16/2017 was registered on 21.02.2017 under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and investigation started. After completion of investigation, the I/O upon finding materials submitted charge-sheet against the convict appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. He listed 7 witnesses in the Charge-sheet. Subsequently, vide order dated 16.10.2017, charge was framed against the convict/appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The charge being denied by the accused led to commencement of the trial, during which, 5 witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the victim, Medical Officer and her parents. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. The defence did not lead evidence. After completion of trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced as described above and aggrieved by the same, he has filed the instant appeal.

4. Mr. Victor L. Ralte, the learned Amicus Curiae for the convict appellant, has taken the Court through the depositions of the witnesses adduced during the trial. It is submitted that in her testimony, the victim has clearly stated that the accused did not insert his finger or private parts into her private parts and therefore, the accused could not have been convicted for penetrative sexual assault under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

5. Referring to the testimony of the Medical Officer, the learned counsel submits that medical examination was conducted several days after the date of the alleged incident and the finding of the Doctor also does not indicate commission of rape.

6. It is submitted that the statement of the victim girl recorded before the Magistrate during investigation was not exhibited. It is submitted that the testimony of the parents of the victim, including her father who was the informant, is hearsay evidence and they cannot be relied upon to attribute guilt to the accused. The learned counsel contends and submits that apart from contradictions between the testimony of the victim and the medical evidence, the testimony of the victim herself also suffers from contradictions, apart from her aforesaid statement dispelling the possibility of penetrative assault.

7. The learned counsel submits that the conviction of the appellant under section 4 of the POCSO Act is incorrect in law and facts and should be set aside by allowing this appeal.

8.