The doctrine of 'no reformatio in peius' prohibits an appellate court from enhancing a sentence or elevating a conviction to a graver offence in an appeal filed solely by the accused. Furthermore, credible and unblemished testimony of a child victim is sufficient for conviction without needing medical corroboration.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent and Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned Legal Aid Counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2.

2] The present appeal is filed under Section 415 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagaraik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , (hereinafter referred to as the “BNSS”) [corresponding to Section 374 of the Code or Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”)] against the judgment dated 21.03.2024 and the sentence order dated 04.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Aizawl District, (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”) in Sessions Case No. 40 of 2022, arising out of Criminal Trial No. 443 of 2022, Aizawl P.S. Case No. 644/2021, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act”), and was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 (five) years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand); in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment of 1 (one) month.

3] The prosecution story is that on 24.12.2021 a written F.I.R. was submitted by the respondent No. 2/PW-1 (Nir Bahadur Sunar), stating, inter alia, that on 23.12.2021, near Jivan Sang Republic Vengthlang Church, the accused/appellant, aged about 28 years, sexually assaulted his son PW-6/victim, who was aged about 4 years, by inserting his penis inside the anus of the victim ‘x’. Accordingly, a case was registered as Aizawl P.S. Case No. 644/2021 dated 24.12.2021 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

4] During the course of the investigation, the informant/PW-1 was examined, and his statement was recorded. The victim and the other witnesses were also examined under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act before the trial court. The trial court thereafter, upon the accused pleading not guilty, framed charges under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

5] During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7 prosecution witnesses, including the informant/PW-1, the brother of the victim PW-2 (Suraj Sunar), the friend of the victim PW-3 (Joseph Tamang), the seizure witness PW-4 (Ram Bahadur), the victim himself PW-6, the forensic expert PW-7 (Ammie Lalnunpuii), and the Investigating Officer PW-9 (S.I. S. Vungzamuana). Upon completion of the trial, all the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused/appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he generally denied taking the victim ‘x’ anywhere or doing anything to him. He further adduced himself as defence witness No. 1. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the trial court was pleased to observe that though the evidence does not indicate the victim ‘x’ being penetrated by the accused/appellant; however, taking the evidence as a whole, nevertheless, it is established that the victim ‘x’ had been sexually assaulted by the accused/appellant, and accordingly, convicted the accused/appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Situated thus, the present appeal has been preferred.

6] Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant, submits that there is no medical evidence produced before this court to establish the offence of sexual assault by the accused/appellant, and hence the impugned conviction is liable to be interfered with.

7] Per contra, Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent, submits that the learned trial court has convicted the accused/appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act; however, it is clearly evident from the initial statement of the victim ‘x’ recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. before the Investigating Officer as well as during his examination by the Judicial Magistrate co