JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned Amicus Curiae and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, Addl. Public Prosecutor. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2016 passed by the Special Court, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO Act, 2012'), by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 323 IPC r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and 1 year under Section 323 of IPC. 3. The present appellant was also imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, Simple Imprisonment for 1 month. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant's granddaughter Lalhmachhuani, age 4 years, was raped on the night of 11.02.2014, sometime between 10 to 11.30 pm by the complainant's husband Vanlalmawia. The appellant apparently also burnt part of the victim's body with a burning cigarette and pulled out strands of her hair from her head. Charge under Section 323 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was framed against the appellant on 21.10.2014, in which the appellant pleaded guilty and claimed trial. 5. During the course of the trial, 7 prosecution witnesses were examined. 6. The evidence of the complainant (PW1) is to the effect that during the month of February, 2014, when her daughter was taken to Hospital to deliver a child, the complainant accompanied her daughter to the Hospital. During this time, her granddaughter (victim PW2) was in the residence along with the appellant and the complainant's son from a previous marriage, namely, Lalhruaizela (PW3). The complainant PW1, thereafter, stated as follows:- "On my returned from the hospital I found my gran-daughter sleeping with her uncle Lalhruaizela and they were both covered with the blankets. I informed them to get up from bed since it was already late. When the accused Vanlalmawia went out of the room, my son Hruaizela informed that the accused Vanlalmawia had assaulted my grandchild throughout the night. I inspected my grandchild and found that there were bruise marks on her face and also part of her hair was pulled out. I enquired from the accused as to what had occurred and he replied that since the child was obeying him he had pulled her hair and pinched her on the face. I inspected my grandchild and found that there were bruise marks on her face and also part of her hair was pulled out. I enquired from the accused as to what had occurred and he replied that since the child was obeying him he had pulled her hair and pinched her on the face. I sent my son Hruaizela and grandchild to delivered food to my daughter at the hospital. Later I proceeded to the hospital and found that the mother of my grandchild was weeping. On enquiry she informed that the child had reported that the accused had sexually assaulted her during the night by making her take his private parts into her mouth and also had attempted to insert his private parts into her vagina. I also enquired from the child as to what had occurred. She informed me that the accused had sexually assaulted her and also had beaten her on the back side. I also inspected the injuries sustained by the child. I immediately reported the matter to Kulikawn PS from where we were referred to CAW Cell at Aizawl Police Station." 7. The evidence of the victim (PW2) is as follows:- "On the night of incident the accused along with my uncle Hruaizela spent the night in our house at Kulikawn. My mother was in hospital and my grandmother was attending to her at hospital. At night the accused assaulted me with cigarette butt and burned several parts of my body at my back, thigh, back of my neck etc. He also took out his private parts and made me suck on it. He also attempted to insert his finger and his private parts into my vagina but since I felt pain he stopped and poured water which he was drinking on my private part. During this time my uncle was sleeping on his bed and was warned by the accused to keep quiet. Later the accused called us to his bed and made us sleep there." 8. The evidence of PW3, who is 12 years old and the uncle of the victim girl is reproduced below:- "I know the accused person present in Court today. He is my stepfather. I have four other siblings. During the time of incident the accused was still married to my mother and we were living all together in one house. The evidence of PW3, who is 12 years old and the uncle of the victim girl is reproduced below:- "I know the accused person present in Court today. He is my stepfather. I have four other siblings. During the time of incident the accused was still married to my mother and we were living all together in one house. The mother of the victim is my elder sister. They reside at Model Veng, Aizawl. During the month of February 2014 the victim and my elder sister came and stayed in our house since she was ill and also had some differences with her husband. My elder sister was admitted to hospital and my mother attended to her at the hospital. During this time myself and the victim and the accused were staying at home. The victim is about 4 years of age. On the night of incident the victim initially slept with me on another bed. At night the accused called the victim to sleep with him. In the middle of the night I was awaken by the sound of crying of the victim. I enquired what was the matter. The accused replied that the victim had gone out and that was the reason he was scolding her. I went back to sleep but was late awaken by the sound of altercation between the accused and the victim. The victim was crying and the accused was giving her bath in the bathroom in the middle of the night. The victim was fully wet and naked and came running to me. The accused came and pulled her by the hair and made her sit on the chair where he forced her to drink something. He also tied the hands of the victim. The victim also vomited on the bed. I was scared of the accused and did enquire further. After sometime they became quiet and I also went back to sleep. In the morning the victim was sleeping with me in my bed. Her face was also bruised. I did enquire anything from the victim. In the morning my mother returned from hospital and I reported the matter to her. Thereafter I went out of the house and I do know what happened later." 9. The evidence given by Dr. In the morning the victim was sleeping with me in my bed. Her face was also bruised. I did enquire anything from the victim. In the morning my mother returned from hospital and I reported the matter to her. Thereafter I went out of the house and I do know what happened later." 9. The evidence given by Dr. Lalbiakdiki (PW7) is to the effect that she examined the victim on 12.02.2014 and found that there was a ruptured blister in the vaginal introitus on the right side at 9 o'clock position. The hymen was intact. 10. The evidence of Dr. Joseph Lalluaia (PW8) is to the effect that he examined the victim's girl on 12.02.2014 at 5.20 pm and in his examination, he found that there were blisters (burns) on the victim girl located in the left upper thigh, face, blister on right and left hand. There was also an abrasion in the stomach, near the umbilical cord region. The opinion of Dr. Joseph is that the blisters were caused due to heat. 11. The examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to Question Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are as follows:- "Q.5. It is in evidence that when your wife came home, she saw her granddaughter sleeping with Hruaizela 11 yrs old, she saw injuries on her cheeks, on her head she saw a large portion of her hair missing and she suspected your torture her, and she asked you whether you torture her. Then you say you had assaulted her to discipline her. What do you say? Ans: Yes, when my wife came home, she asked me whether I had caused the injuries on the body of Lalhmachhuani 4 yrs old. Then I told my wife I had assaulted her as she was obedient to me. Q.6. When the victim girl was taken to her mother at B.N Hospital, Kulikawn victim girl said, you had assaulted her and burnt her with cigarettes, catch hold of her at her hair and also inserted your finger at her private part and you also let her fondle your penis with her mouth. What do you say? Ans: When I assaulted victim girl I had a burning cigarette in my hand and it might have burnt her on her cheek. What do you say? Ans: When I assaulted victim girl I had a burning cigarette in my hand and it might have burnt her on her cheek. But I did poke my finger at her private part nor did I put my penis inside her mouth. Q.7. Do you have any other thing to say before the court? Ans: Yes, I beg the forgiveness of the court. Q.8. Do you want to adduce defence evidence? Ans: No. Q.9. The victim girl said when you put your penis inside her mouth, she vomited, you also said she vomited. What do you say? Ans: I did remember." 12. The evidence given by PWs 1, 2 and 3 have been shaken by the appellant during cross examination. In fact, the answers given by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is to the effect that he had admitted to assaulting the victim girl, pulling her hair and also having burnt her on her cheek. With respect to the question whether he had put his penis inside the mouth of the victim, the appellant said that he did remember. 13. The learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Vanlalnghaka submits that impugned Judgment & Order dated 21.11.2016 should be set aside on the ground that medical report does show that any penetrative sexual assault had taken place upon the victim. He submits that medical report only shows that there were blisters upon the body of the victim girl. He also submits that there are inconsistencies in the statement of the victim girl given to the Magistrate on 03.03.2014 and the evidence given in Court on 20.01.2015. He also submits that there are discrepancies between the evidence given by the victim (PW 2) & PW 3. He thus submits that as there is a doubt as to whether there had been any penetrative sexual assault made upon the victim girl by the appellant, the appellant should be given the benefit of doubt and should be acquitted. 14. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses have very clearly pointed out the fact that there has been penetrative sexual assault by the appellant upon the victim. She submits that the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has also denied the fact that he had put his penis inside the victim's mouth. Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses have very clearly pointed out the fact that there has been penetrative sexual assault by the appellant upon the victim. She submits that the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has also denied the fact that he had put his penis inside the victim's mouth. The only answer given by the appellant to the above question was that he did remember. 15. The Addl. Public Prosecutor also submits that the appellant had admitted to assaulting the 4 year old victim girl on the relevant night in question and admitted that he might have burnt the cheek of the victim girl. The Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that if the appellant is unsure of having burnt the cheek of the victim girl, it can be presumed that the appellant would also be unsure of having burnt the rest of the body of the victim girl. However, the fact that the appellant was holding a burning cigarette in his hand during the relevant period of time is admitted by the appellant in his statement given under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 16. She submits that the evidence of the victim is trustworthy and as the said evidence has been shaken in cross examination, the victim girl's evidence should be enough to convict and sentence the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 323 IPC. She thus submits that the impugned Judgment & Order dated 21.11.2016 should be upheld. 17. In the case of Rajkumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2014) 5 SCC 353 , the Apex Court has held that complete denial/silence/non-explanation of an incriminating material would entitle the Court to draw an adverse inference against the accused, as may be permissible in accordance with law. 18. In the case of Ashok Debbarma Alias Achak Debbarma v. State of Tripura reported in (2014) 4 SCC 747 , the Apex Court has held that though a Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement by themselves, are enough for conviction, Section 313 statement can be used for corroboration along with other evidence for conviction. 19. In the present case, the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses is to the effect that the appellant had assaulted the victim. There is also no denial of the fact that the victim had been burnt. 19. In the present case, the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses is to the effect that the appellant had assaulted the victim. There is also no denial of the fact that the victim had been burnt. The evidence adduced is also to the effect that the appellant made the victim girl suck his private part and that he attempted to insert his private part into the vagina of the victim. However, as the victim felt pain, the appellant did proceed further in his desire to penetrate the victim girl's vagina. Further, the medical report has clearly stated that there was a ruptured blister in the victim girl's vagina introitus on the right side, at 9 o'clock position. These all point to the action of the appellant against the victim. 20. Section 3 of the POCSO Act, 2012 defines penetrative sexual assault as follows: "3. Penetrative sexual assault. - A person is said to commit "penetrative sexual assault" if - (a) He penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or (b) He inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or (c) He manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or (d) He applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the child or makes the child to do so such person or any other person." 21. Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 provides for imprisonment of a term of less than seven years for penetrative sexual assault, while Section 6 provides for punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault for rigorous imprisonment of a term of less than ten years. Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 provides for imprisonment of a term of less than seven years for penetrative sexual assault, while Section 6 provides for punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault for rigorous imprisonment of a term of less than ten years. Section 5 (n) of POCSO Act, 2012 defines aggravated penetrative sexual assault to have been committed when a relative of the child through blood or adoption or marriage or guardianship or in foster care or having a domestic relationship with a parent of the child or who is living in the same or shared household with the child, commits penetrative sexual assault on such child. 22. Thus, in this case, the appellant having denied the fact that he had put his penis inside the victim's mouth has committed penetrative sexual assault. Further, the appellant having come within the meaning of Section 5 (n) of the POCSO Act, 2012 as he is living in the same shared household with the child, the appellant has been correctly convicted and sentenced for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. 23. On considering the evidence given by PWs 1, 2 and 3 and the statement given by the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., I find that the statement of the victim inspires confidence and, as such, is accepted by this Court as being the truth. No doubt, the statement given by the victim on 03.03.2014 is exactly similar with her evidence given in January, 2015, though most of the relevant portions are similar. These, according to this Court, are minor contradictions and insignificant discrepancies which should be a ground for throwing out the case of the prosecution. In the judicial statement given by the victim girl on 03.03.2014, the victim girl has stated as follows:- "My name is Lalhmachhuani. I do know my grandmother's name. My mother's name is Tetei and my younger brother is Mama. I do attend school yet however I go to Anganwadi Centre. We learn A and B there and we even receive milk at school. While my mother was hospitalized, my grandmother spent the night at the hospital with her. During this time, I was at home with my grandfather and uncle Hruaizela. My grandfather's name is Mawia. During the night, my grandfather Mawia made me eat his private part. He even beat me up at my back, my hips and head. While my mother was hospitalized, my grandmother spent the night at the hospital with her. During this time, I was at home with my grandfather and uncle Hruaizela. My grandfather's name is Mawia. During the night, my grandfather Mawia made me eat his private part. He even beat me up at my back, my hips and head. He even pulled down various strands of hair from my head. He stubbed his cigarette butt on my neck, my inner thighs, my left wrist and also my private part. My grandfather Mawia also insert his private part inside my private part. I cried out loud and as my uncle was already asleep, he did come to my rescue. My grandfather Mawia abused and molested me on the floor near the bench. I began to sleep after a while. My grandmother Roengpuii came home only in the morning. I then told my grandmother what my grandfather did to me during the night." 24. Juxtaposing the judicial statement of the victim girl with her evidence given nine months later, shows that there is hardly any difference in her stand. 25. In the case of Narendra Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 171 , the Apex Court has held at paragraph 20 as follows:- "20. It is a settled legal proposition that once the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the court as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the court for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case". 26. As this Court has already held that the statement of the victim girl inspires confidence and as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses have not been shaken, but in fact, the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has corroborated the prosecution case, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment & Order dated 21.11.2016 passed in Criminal Trial No. 191/2014. 27. In view of the reasons stated above, the present appeal stands dismissed. 28. Send back the LCRs. 27. In view of the reasons stated above, the present appeal stands dismissed. 28. Send back the LCRs. 29. In appreciation of the services rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae, his fee is fixed at Rs. 7,500/- payable by the Mizoram State Legal Services Authority, Aizawl.