JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Jonathan L. Sailo, learned Amicus Curiae as well as Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. 2. This is an appeal from jail filed by the accused/appellant against the Judgment & Order dated 18.06.2018 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), Mizoram, Aizawl in S.C No. 192/2016 in Criminal Trial No. 1867/2016 whereby, the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one (1) month. 3. Brief facts of the case is that an FIR was filed by one B. Vanlalthlamuani before the Officer-in-Charge, Bawngkawn Police Station on 26.10.2016 to the effect that her grand-daughter who was 11 years of age was sexually molested and raped by her grand-son i.e., the appellant herein, who was aged 30 years on various occasions in their house at Tuirial Airfield Vengthar. She stated that they came to learn about the incident only after her grand-daughter was questioned by the authorities in the orphanage home. She therefore requested that necessary action be taken as per law. 4. As a result of the FIR, Bawngkawn P.S Case No. 336/2016 dated 26.10.2016 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was registered and investigation conducted. After investigating into the matter, the Investigating Officer found the charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act well established against the appellant and filed charge-sheet No. 256/2016 before the Court. Following the submission of the charge-sheet, charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was framed against the appellant on 27.02.2017 by the Court of Special Judge under POCSO Act where the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed for trial. As such, trial against the appellant commenced. 5. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 prosecution witnesses out of the 10 prosecution witnesses cited and the defense examined only one witness. After the prosecution concluded their evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC on 23.04.2018 where he denied his involvement in the alleged crime and stated that he wanted to adduce defense witness by examining his own father as defense witness. After the prosecution concluded their evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC on 23.04.2018 where he denied his involvement in the alleged crime and stated that he wanted to adduce defense witness by examining his own father as defense witness. The father of the appellant was then examined as a sole defense witness and thereafter, the Trial Court upon hearing the rival parties passed the impugned Judgment & Order convicting and sentencing him in the manner as already stated herein above. 6. Mr. Jonathan L. Sailo, learned Amicus Curiae submits that there are serious inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the evidence of the prosecutrix herself. Referring to the statement made by the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that she stated that she was sexually assaulted three times in their house and four times in the house of her mother's younger sister. Whereas, the prosecutrix in her Examination-in-Chief before the Court did not state as to how many times she was sexually assaulted. The learned Amicus Curiae further submits that one of the grounds for filing the appeal by the appellant is that the learned Trial Court in its Judgment & Order dated 18.06.2018 concluded that the appellant as well as one Sh. Lalsawmliana were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 10 years with fine but the fact remains that there is no other person who have been charge as co-accused to the alleged crime. Therefore, from the impugned Judgment & Order, it cannot be made out as to who has been convicted and sentenced. 7. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that according to the prosecutrix, she had informed Ennet B. Lalthlengliani (PW-8) who was working at the shelter home during the year 2015 that the appellant used to commit penetrative sexual assault on her. However, in the Examination-in-Chief of PW-8, there is no indication that the prosecutrix had informed her about the penetrative sexual assault committed upon her. According to the prosecutrix, PW-8 was the first person to whom she had narrated about the incident but according to PW-3, who was also working at the shelter home as Case Worker, she was informed by the prosecutrix about the sexual assault committed upon her during the year 2015 by the appellant. According to the prosecutrix, PW-8 was the first person to whom she had narrated about the incident but according to PW-3, who was also working at the shelter home as Case Worker, she was informed by the prosecutrix about the sexual assault committed upon her during the year 2015 by the appellant. As such, he submits that in view of the inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the impugned Judgment & Order cannot be sustained and may be set aside. 8. The learned Amicus Curiae by further referring to the deposition of the sole defense witness submits that the said witness who is the father of the appellant in his Examination-in-Chief stated that the appellant was his second youngest child and he had a drug addiction problem. He consumed drugs in large quantities and remains in semi alert state. He did not show interest in anything apart from drugs and therefore, it was his belief that he would not commit sexual assault on anybody. Because of the drugs that he took, he would not be capable of having sex. In his cross-examination, he stated that the appellant was in judicial custody on 08.01.2015 and he stood as his surety when he was released on bail on 28.10.2015. The learned Amicus Curiae therefore submits that since the allegation made by the prosecutrix is about the incident which happened in the year 2015 and considering the appellant being in judicial custody up till 28.10.2015, it was most unlikely that he had committed the alleged offence. Under the circumstances, he submits that the impugned Judgment & Order be interfered with by this Court by setting aside the same. 9. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that although there might be minor inconsistencies or typographical mistakes in the impugned Judgment & Order but the fact remains that the same cannot vitiate the findings against the appellant. In other words, the impugned Judgment & Order of the Trial Court is sustainable in law and on facts. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that since the prosecutrix was only a child of tender age, she cannot be treated as grown-up and matured person and expected to understand the situation she was put into. In other words, the impugned Judgment & Order of the Trial Court is sustainable in law and on facts. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that since the prosecutrix was only a child of tender age, she cannot be treated as grown-up and matured person and expected to understand the situation she was put into. It is also not possible for a girl of her age to remember each and every detail about the incident or the crime as she was subjected to the same on many occasions. The prosecutrix in her Examination-in-Chief clearly stated that she was put under threat by the appellant with a knife and therefore, it was only natural that she did not narrate the incident before things came to light in the shelter home. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor also submits that since the prosecutrix and the appellant are related and there being no enmity between them, there is no possibility of the prosecutrix having come up with a cooked-up story only to falsely implicate the appellant. She submits that a careful appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses would go to show that the appellant indeed had committed the alleged crime upon the prosecutrix and therefore, he was rightly convicted by the Trial Court and accordingly sentenced with the minimum punishment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. She therefore submits that the appeal has no merit and the same should be dismissed. 10. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have also perused the materials available on records including the record requisitioned from the Trial Court. In order to find out as to whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is sustainable or not, it would be necessary to examine the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses and also by the defense witness. 11. PW-1, who is the complainant in her Examination-in-Chief deposed that the appellant was her close relative. During the year 2014-2015, he used to live with them. The victim was her grand-daughter and her parents got separated when she was of a tender age. As such, she along with her 2 siblings were living with them. 11. PW-1, who is the complainant in her Examination-in-Chief deposed that the appellant was her close relative. During the year 2014-2015, he used to live with them. The victim was her grand-daughter and her parents got separated when she was of a tender age. As such, she along with her 2 siblings were living with them. She was about 12 years at the time when the deposition was made and that one day she took the prosecutrix to Aizawl Bazar and she carried along some local made liquor to sell. She did not remember the date but it was a Saturday. Dawrpui JAC apprehended her but she escaped from them and as for the prosecutrix, she was kept at ITI shelter home. They were informed to approach the Child Welfare Committee and that her husband went to their office, he was informed that her grand-daughter was sexually assaulted by the appellant. On receiving this information, they decided to submit an FIR before the Police and on the next day, she went to Bawngkawn Police Station and submitted the FIR. In her cross-examination, she stated that the FIR was lodged based on suspicion since she has no direct information regarding the allegation. 12. PW-2, Sh. Malsawmsanga in his Examination-in-Chief stated that he knows the accused person and that the victim was the daughter of his elder brother. She was admitted to ITI shelter home and some counselor of the shelter home informed them that she had been sexually assaulted by the appellant. He stated that they went to the shelter home and asked the prosecutrix about the incident and to which she informed them that the appellant had sexually assaulted her twice in his house and also in the house of his mother. On hearing this and after mutual consultation, they decided to submit an FIR. 13. PW-3, Smt. R. Lalhriatpuii in her Examination-in-Chief stated that she did not know the appellant. During the year 2016, she was working at the shelter home as Case Worker. On 18.10.2016, the Child Welfare Committee, Aizawl admitted Ruthi Zonunsangi at the shelter home, Aizawl and they gave counseling to the prosecutrix. In the process, the prosecutrix informed them that she was sexually assaulted by the appellant during the year 2015. During the year 2016, she was working at the shelter home as Case Worker. On 18.10.2016, the Child Welfare Committee, Aizawl admitted Ruthi Zonunsangi at the shelter home, Aizawl and they gave counseling to the prosecutrix. In the process, the prosecutrix informed them that she was sexually assaulted by the appellant during the year 2015. In her cross-examination, she stated that it was a fact that the incident occurred in the year 2015 and that the FIR was submitted on 26.10.2016. 14. PW-4 is the prosecutrix herself and in her Examination-in-Chief, she stated that she knows the appellant and that he was her close relative. Her parents separated during the year 2014 to 2015 while she was at a tender age. As such, she along with her 2 siblings were living with their grand-parents at Tuirial Airfield Veng. One day, although she cannot recollect the date but she knows that it was Saturday, she along with her grand-mother went to Aizawl Bazar and her grand-mother had carried some local made liquor to sell. Dawrpui JAC apprehended her but she escaped from them and as for her, she was admitted to ITI shelter home. While she was in the shelter home, she told one Ennet, who was working in the shelter home that during the year 2015, the appellant used to commit penetrative sexual assault upon her. The appellant committed the offence sometimes in their house and sometimes in the house of her aunty. While the accused use to assault her sexually, she used to feel pain in her private parts but she did not narrate the incident to anyone because the accused threatened her with a knife. When the accused sexually assault her, he use to penetrate his penis into her private part. She informed Ennet, the teacher at ITI shelter home and they informed her grand-parents about the incident. Her grand-father reported the matter to the police and after that she was medically examined by the Medical Doctor. In her cross-examination, she stated that she did not know how she was related to the accused and that both her parents remain divorced till date. She did not know whether or not the accused was detained at Central Jail, Aizawl in the year 2015 and that she could not remember the time when she was threatened with a knife by the accused as it was long time back. She did not know whether or not the accused was detained at Central Jail, Aizawl in the year 2015 and that she could not remember the time when she was threatened with a knife by the accused as it was long time back. She also stated that besides the accused, another person whose name she could not recollect also stayed in her auntie’s house. She also stated that the name of husband of her aunty was Malsawmsanga. 15. Dr. Zosangpuii was examined as PW-5, stated on oath that during the year 2016, she was posted at Civil Hospital, Aizawl as Gyneacologist. On 26.10.2016, she received requisition from Bawngkawn Police Station to examine the prosecutrix who was said to be a victim of sexual assault. Accordingly, she conducted the examination and found her to be physically and mentally normal. On examining her, she found that there was no bruising/laceration of external genitalia. Her hymen was ruptured (old) and there were signs of infection discharged/skin infection over the buttock and thigh. She exhibited her medical report as Exhibit P-3 and her signature as P-3-A. In her cross-examination, she stated that she examined the prosecutrix after the alleged incident was perhaps committed 3 to 4 months back. During her examination, she was attended by a female nurse and she did not personally know as to who had committed the sexual assault upon the prosecutrix. 16. Dr. Freddie Chhangte was examined as PW-6 and in his Examination-in-Chief, he deposed that during the year 2016, he was posted at Civil Hospital, Aizawl (Emergency Department) as Medical Officer. On 26.10.2016, he received requisition from Bawngkawn Police Station to examine the accused person. On the same day at around 4:20 p.m, he conducted examination upon the accused appellant and he found him to be physically and mentally healthy. On examining his genitals, he found his genital organ to be developed and normal. From his mental and physical examination, it appeared that the accused person was able to perform sexual intercourse. He exhibited his Medical Report and his signature as Exhibit P-2 and P-2-A respectively. In his cross-examination, he stated that what he stated about the genital organ is from the oral examination. 17. Ennet B. Lalthlengliani was examined as PW-8. In her Examination-in-Chief, she deposed that she was working in the shelter home at ITI Veng as counselor. He exhibited his Medical Report and his signature as Exhibit P-2 and P-2-A respectively. In his cross-examination, he stated that what he stated about the genital organ is from the oral examination. 17. Ennet B. Lalthlengliani was examined as PW-8. In her Examination-in-Chief, she deposed that she was working in the shelter home at ITI Veng as counselor. On 27.10.2016, she accompanied the prosecutrix aged about 11 years to the IUCAW Cell, Aizawl for her statement to be recorded. The grand-mother of the prosecutrix brought her original Birth Certificate to the IUCAW Cell and a photo copy of the Birth Certificate was made and seized by the police. She signed the seizure memo as a seizure witness. She exhibited the seizure memo and her signature as well as the Birth Certificate as Exhibit P-4, P-4-A and M-1. In her cross-examination, she reiterated what she has stated in her Examination-in-Chief. 18. Smt. R. Lalthanpuii was examined as PW-10. In her Examination-in-Chief, she stated that she knew the appellant and in the year 2016, she was posted at IUCAW Cell, Aizawl as Sub-Inspector. On 26.10.2016, an FIR was received from PW-1 to the effect that her grand-daughter aged about 11 years had been repeatedly sexually assaulted by the accused, who was related to them and was living in the same house. A case was registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and it was endorsed to the IUCAW Cell and thus, she was endorsed to take up the investigation. During the investigation, she visited the place of occurrence at Tuirial. The prosecutrix was placed in the shelter home in ITI Veng, Aizawl and she was brought to the IUCAW Cell by one of the workers at home. The victim’s grand-mother also came to the IUCAW Cell and as preferred by the victim’s grand-mother, she recorded the statement of the victim and the complainant at IUCAW Cell. From the report of the Medical Doctor, the victim had an old rupture of the hymen and she arrested the accused and interrogated him. He denied committing the offense but they proceeded on the basis of the statement of the victim and the Medical Report. The Photostat copy of the Birth Certificate of the victim was brought by the complainant and was seized in the presence of witnesses. He denied committing the offense but they proceeded on the basis of the statement of the victim and the Medical Report. The Photostat copy of the Birth Certificate of the victim was brought by the complainant and was seized in the presence of witnesses. The victim was forwarded to the Court for her judicial statement to be recorded and the accused was also forwarded to Civil Hospital, Aizawl for medical examination. From the investigation, it was found that a prima facie case was well established against the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. She exhibited the seizure memo, her signature, Birth Certificate and the charge-sheet and the signature appended thereto as Exhibits P-4, P-4-B, M-1, P-5 and P-5-A respectively. In her cross-examination, she stated that she did not know as to whether the accused had any previous conviction. The victim was brought to the IUCAW Cell, Aizawl by a counselor of the home where she was staying and the victim told her that she was sexually assaulted by the accused a number of times at their house in Tuirial. She also stated that she informed the counselor at the home about the assaults by the accused person upon her but she did not inform her grand-mother about it. 19. In order to appreciate the evidence against the appellant, it would be gainful to abstract the deposition of the prosecutrix herself, particularly when there is no witness to the alleged crime:- “On S/A I know the accused Laltlinliana. He is our close relative. During the year 2014-2015, my parents got separated while I was at tender age and I along with my two siblings were living with our grand-parents at Tuirial Airfield Veng. One day, I cannot recollect the exact date and time but I know that it was Saturday, I along with my grand-mother went to Aizawl Bazaar and my grand-mother carried some local made liquor with her for sale. Dawrpui JAC apprehended her and she escaped from them and they admitted me at ITI shelter home. While I was at shelter home, I told one Annette who is working at shelter home that during the year 2015, the accused Laltlinliana used to commit penetrative sexual assault upon me. The accused sexually assaulted me sometimes in our house and sometimes at the house of my aunty. While I was at shelter home, I told one Annette who is working at shelter home that during the year 2015, the accused Laltlinliana used to commit penetrative sexual assault upon me. The accused sexually assaulted me sometimes in our house and sometimes at the house of my aunty. While the accused sexually assaulted me, I used to felt pain in my private part but I did not narrate the incident to anyone because the accused threatened me with a knife. When the accused sexually assaulted me, he used to penetrate his penis into my private part. Annette-i informed our teacher at ITI shelter home and they also informed my grand-parents about the incident. My grand-father reported the matter to the police and after that I was medically examined by Medical Doctor. XXX by Ld. Defense Counsel: It is a fact that I do not know how we are related to the accused. It is a fact that both my parents were still divorced till date. It is a fact that I do not know whether or not the accused was detained at Central Jail in the year 2015. It is a fact that I could not remember the time when the accused threatened me with a knife since it was long time back. It is a fact that another man besides the accused was also residing at my auntie’s house. However, I could not recollect his name. It is a fact that my aunty has a husband by the name of Malsawmsanga. It is not a fact that the accused did not threaten me at my auntie’s house. It is not a fact that I am deposing falsely in the court today.” 20. From the above abstract, it may be seen that the prosecutrix when she was kept in the shelter home at ITI Veng, Aizawl had informed PW-8 about the sexual assault made upon her by the appellant. Although PW-8 has not said much in her Examination-in-Chief but she had stated that she had accompanied the prosecutrix to the IUCAW Cell, Aizawl for statements to be recorded. PW-10 in her Examination-in-Chief deposed that she was posted as Sub-Inspector at the IUCAW Cell, Aizawl in the year 2016 and pursuant to the FIR filed on 26.10.2016 registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2016, she was endorsed to take up the case for investigation. PW-10 in her Examination-in-Chief deposed that she was posted as Sub-Inspector at the IUCAW Cell, Aizawl in the year 2016 and pursuant to the FIR filed on 26.10.2016 registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2016, she was endorsed to take up the case for investigation. She visited the place of occurrence at Tuirial and also stated that the victim was placed in the shelter home at ITI Veng, Aizawl. She was brought to the IUCAW Cell by one of the workers at the shelter home. She recorded the statement of the victim and the complainant and forwarded the victim to Civil Hospital, Aizawl for medical examination. She also stated that the accused was forwarded to the Civil Hospital for medical examination and thereafter, after completing her investigation, she found a Prima Facie case well established against the accused person under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and submitted the charge-sheet before the Court. PW-2 in his Examination-in-Chief also stated that when he heard from the counselor of the shelter home at ITI that his niece, the prosecutrix had been sexually assaulted by the appellant, he went to the shelter home and asked the prosecutrix about the incident and to which she replied that the appellant had sexually assaulted her twice in his house and in the house of his mother. Upon hearing the incident and after consultation, they had decided to submit an FIR to the Police. PW-5 also in her Examination-in-Chief stated that upon examining the prosecutrix, she found her to be physically and mentally normal and that her hymen was ruptured and that it was not a recent one. It is therefore seen the version of the prosecutrix about the alleged crime has clearly been coroborated by PW Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 & 10. 21. The father of the accused appellant was examined as lone defence witness and he deposed that the appellant was his second youngest child and that he was into drugs. He stated that in view of his addiction, he would not be capable of having sex and that he do not show any interest in women. However, the appellant was examined by PW-6, the Medical Doctor posted at Civil Hospital, Aizawl on 26.10.2016. PW-6 deposed that during the time of his examination, the appellant was physically and mentally healthy and his genital organ was developed and normal. However, the appellant was examined by PW-6, the Medical Doctor posted at Civil Hospital, Aizawl on 26.10.2016. PW-6 deposed that during the time of his examination, the appellant was physically and mentally healthy and his genital organ was developed and normal. Upon seeing his condition, he opined that the accused would be capable of performing sexual intercourse. 22. The Apex Court in the case of Aman Kumar & Another -vs- State of Haryana reported in (2004) 4 SCC 379 held that it was a settled principal of law that the prosecutrix cannot be considered as accomplice and, therefore, her testimony cannot be equated with that of an accomplice in an offence of rape. In State of Punjab -vs- Gurmit Singh & Others reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 the Apex Court held that testimony of a victim of sexual assault is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before replying upon the same as a rule in such cases amounts to, adding insult to injury. 23. Upon an overall appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, including the statement of the prosecutrix, although there might be some minor inconsistencies but the same in my considered view are not enough to vitiate the case of the prosecution. It may be seen that the appellant and the prosecutrix are related and there is no suggestion to even show that there was some enmity between them or in the family. Therefore, there is no reason as to why the prosecutrix, who was only a child of 11 years at the relevant time, would wrongly implicate the appellant for no reason. This Court therefore finds her testimony to be reliable and trustworthy. 24. In that view of the matter I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Send back the LCRs. 25. In appreciation of the assistance provided by the learned Amicus Curiae, his fee is fixed at Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred), which shall be paid by the Mizoram State Legal Services Authority on production of a copy of this order.