The conviction can be supported solely based on the credible testimony of the victim, especially when medical evidence is used to ascertain age in the absence of documents.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

Heard Mr. Lalfakwama, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. Linda L Fambawl, learned PP, Mizoram for the respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. H. Zodingsanga, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No.2/informant.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the convict Romawia through the Special Superintendent, District Jail, Champhai under Section 374 CrPC assailing his conviction and sentence awarded to him by the learned Fast Tract Special Court (Rape and POCSO Act, 2012), Champhai vide judgment dated 30.03.2023 passed in Criminal Trial No. 217/2022 for the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

3. As per the judgment the accused appellant is convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and thereby sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 (ten) years along with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default S.I. for 15 (fifteen) days.

4. Aggrieved with the judgment passed by the learned Fast Tract Special Court, Champhai, Mizoram, this appeal from jail has been preferred through the Superintendent, District Jail, Champhai.

5. The brief facts of the case is that on 25.07.2022 an FIR was lodged by the father of the victim before the Officer-in-Charge of Khawzawl police station alleging that on the night of 28.03.2022, the daughter of the informant, who was 16 years old at the relevant time of incident was raped by the accused appellant, who is the husband of her paternal aunt. It is also stated in the FIR that he threatened to kill the victim and asked her not to disclose about the incident.

6. Mr. Lalfakwama, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submitted that the accused appellant is in jail since the date of his arrest i.e., 30.03.2023. The prosecution has examined only 4 witnesses including the informant, victim, the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer.

7. Mr. Lalfakwama, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submitted that the present appeal has been filed basically on two grounds, i.e., the age of the victim was not proved and the delay in lodging he FIR is also not explained properly.

8. Mr. Lalfakwama, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submitted that admittedly the occurrence took place on 28.03.2022 and the FIR of the case was lodged only on 25.07.2022 i.e., after four months from the date of occurrence without any explanation about the delay in lodging the FIR.

9. Referring the deposition of PW-1, the learned Amicus Curiae submitted that from his deposition it is evident that the accused himself told him that he had sexually assaulted his daughter on the very same day when his daughter told about the incident to him. Thus, inspite of his knowledge about the rape of his daughter, the FIR was lodged after four months from the date of incident without further explanation.

10. The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that though the FIR was lodged on 25.07.2022, but from the FIR form it is seen that the victim informed about the incident to her parents only in the last part of June, 2022. Thus, it is seen that even if it is considered that the matter was informed to her parents by the victim in the last part of June, 2022, the FIR was lodged again with a delay of one month even after coming to know about the incident by the PW-1 in the last part of month of June, 2022.

11. Mr. Lalfakwama, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant further submitted that there is no age prove document of the victim and in absence of the birth certificate, the I.O. also did not try to collect her School Certificate to prove the age of the victim that at the relevant time she was 16 years of age. The I.O. only took the help of Medical Officer for her