In sexual assault cases involving minors, the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient for conviction if the account is consistent and credible. Procedural omissions such as failing to conduct a preliminary inquiry of a child witness do not invalidate the testimony if the witness demonstrates rational understanding.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi, the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned Legal-Aid-counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

2. This Jail Appeal has been registered on receipt of an appeal petition submitted by the appellant, namely, John Lalhruaizela, who is presently serving out his sentence at Central Jail, Aizawl. The appellant has filed this jail appeal on being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.04.2023, passed in Criminal Trial No. 364/2016, by the Fast-Track Special Court, (POCSO Act), Aizawl. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the , 2012 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant jail appeal, in brief, are that on 30.12.2015, the father of the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Sakawrdai Police Station, inter alia, alleging that during the month of September, 2015, her minor daughter of eleven years of age was raped by the present appellant.

4. On receipt of the said FIR, Sakawrdai P.S. Case No. 21/2015 was registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and investigation was initiated. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the victim girl and other witnesses. He also got the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The victim girl was also medically examined by the doctor. Ultimately, on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the present appellant under Section 6 of the , 2012.

5. By order dated 21.10.2016, the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Aizawl framed the charge under Section 6 of the , 2012 against the present appellant. When the said charge was read over and explained to him, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of the trial, the prosecution side examined seven prosecution witnesses. After completion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, during which he admitted having sexual act with the victim girl. However, he alleged that it was the victim who instigated the said sexual act and later on, due to misunderstanding, she made a complaint to her mother. The appellant also adduced evidence of three defence witnesses in support of his defence. Ultimately, by the judgment dated 25.04.2023, the learned Judge, Fast Track Special Court () had convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner which has already been described in the paragraph No. 2 herein above.

6. Before considering the respective submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, let us go through the evidence adduced by the prosecution side as well as by the defence side in support of their respective cases.

7. The PW-1, namely, J. Lalni