The testimony of a child victim is sufficient for conviction in sexual assault cases if credible, even amidst minor discrepancies and delays in FIR filing.

JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, CJ.

Heard Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Mizoram, and Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

2. This is an appeal against the impugned Judgment and order dated 27.09.2024 passed by a Special Judge, POCSO, Aizawl in S.C Case No. 105/2022 arising out of Crl. Tr. No. 1237/2022, pertaining to Saitual P.S Case No. 18/2022, by which the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 376 AB and Section 506 IPC for committing the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault, rape and criminal intimidation on a 4 year old girl.

3. The learned Trial Court also passed the sentence order dated 01.10.2024 pursuant to the conviction of the appellant vide Judgment & Order dated 27.09.2024, sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months in terms of Section 376 AB IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year under Section 506 .

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are contradictions in the statement made by the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C vis-à-vis the evidence of the victim recorded by the learned Trial Court. She also submits that there is a discrepancy in the evidence of the mother of the victim (PW-1) as the actual production of the victim before the medical doctor (PW-8) was 11 days after the incident, though the testimony of PW-1 implied that the victim had been sent for medical examination one day after the incident.

5. She also submits that the evidence of the medical Doctor (PW-8) is not in consonance with the victim’s medical examination report. She submits that there are many inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses and the sequence of evidence does not form a complete chain, to prove that the appellant had committed any offence under the POCSO Act or under IPC . She also submits that the signature of PW-1 is different in her deposition form, the FIR and in the consent form where she had allowed the victim to be examined by a medical doctor. The learned Amicus Curiae thus prays that as the evidence recorded does not justify the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 376 AB and 506 , the impugned judgment & order should be set aside.

6. Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that there is no infirmity with the impugned Judgment and Order convicting the appellant, inasmuch as, the testimony of the victim clearly proved that the appellant had committed the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault, rape and criminal intimidation on the victim. The Addl. PP also submits that the evidence of a prosecutrix in a case of rape is of the same value as that of an injured witness and that the Court should not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature. In this regard, she has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lok Mal Alias Loku Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2025) 4 SCC 470 .