The testimony of a child victim under the POCSO Act, if credible, does not require corroboration for conviction, and minor discrepancies should not undermine a reliable prosecution case.

JUDGMENT :

W. DIENGDOH, J.

1. An undated FIR was filed by the mother of a minor girl, wherein was narrated an incident which allegedly took place on 24.01.2013 at about 8:00 pm or so accusing the appellant herein that he had molested the said minor girl at her residence.

2. The said FIR addressed to the Officer-In-Charge, Williamnagar Women Police Station was immediately registered on 24.01.2013 itself at about 9:20 pm as Women P.S Case No. 01(01) 2013 under Section 354 IPC and investigation was launched.

3. In due course, the Investigating Officer (I/O) after completion of the investigation, filed the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and in the charge sheet, the brief story of the prosecution’s case was noted to say that on 24.01.2013, the appellant had molested the said minor girl at her residence and accordingly, in course of investigation, the minor girl was taken to the hospital for medical examination which revealed that there are some scratch marks on the right side of her breast. The appellant was apprehended and, on his being, arrested, the I/O then proceeded to examine relevant witnesses, including recording of the statement of the complainant and the survivor. Eventually, the I/O found that a prima facie case under Section 354 IPC r/w Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 is found well established against the appellant/accused person and he was directed to stand trial.

4. The learned Special Judge (POCSO), Williamnagar, East Garo Hills District then proceeded with the trial in the case, the same being numbered as Special (POCSO) Case No. 3 of 2018. After charges were framed, the learned Trial Court then examined as many as 9(nine) prosecution’s witnesses. On the conclusion of the recording of the deposition of the witnesses, the court then recorded the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Finally, after hearing the argument of the parties, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the charges have been made out against the accused person/appellant and vide judgment and order dated 31.05.2022, has accordingly convicted him under Section 10 POCSO Act, imposing a concurrent sentence of 5(five) years with fine of ₹10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) in default thereof, to undergo a further simple imprisonment of two months.

5. This appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. is to challenge the legality of such impugned judgment and order dated 31.05.2022 preferred by the accused person, Shri Ajaybirth Marak.

6. Heard Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the appellant, who has submitted that admittedly, the appellant is known to the family of the survivor being a frequent visitor of their home. On the day of the alleged incident, he was invited for a birthday party and accordingly, he went to the house for such purpose.

7. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that on that day, after having dinner, the appellant was sitting in the sitting room and the survivor was there, she did sit on his lap as he used to treat her as his daughter, but he did not commit any offensive act. In fact, there is no malafide intention or mens rea as far as he is concerned.

8. As to the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses, the learned counsel has submitted that the first objection is to the deposition of the complainant, who as PW-1 has admitted that she did not remember what was written in the FIR as her neighbour was helping her write the same, but she had only signed in the said FIR. This according to the learned counsel is to be taken s