JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. Ruthi Vanlalhruaii, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mizoram. 2. The appellant has challenged the impugned Judgment & Order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Special Court, POCSO Act, Aizawl, Mizoram in S.C. No. 19 of 2017 arising out of Kulikawn P.S. Case No. 140 of 2016 dated 20.10.2016by which the appellant is convicted under section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and against the impugned Order dated 09.03.2021and sentenced to undergo 3 (three) years of simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- (rupees one thousand)only and in default of payment of the fine, another S.I. for 1 (one) month. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 20.10.2016, a written FIR was received from the Respondent No.2, stating that her granddaughter who was of 11 years was assaulted several times by the present appellant in 2016 and the respondent No.2 requested to take legal action in this respect. Hence, the Officer-in-Charge of Kulikawn, Police Station registered Kulikawn PS Case No.140/2016 dated 20.10.2016 U/s 8 of POCSO Act, 2012, and the matter was investigation into. The present appellant was arrested on 20.10.2016. The investigation was accordingly initiated and during the course of the investigation, the Prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. P.C. Lalramhluna (Prosecution’s Witness No.7) on 20.10.2016 and the appellant was also examined by Dr. V. Lalremruata (Prosecution’s Witness No.6) on 20.10.2016. The prosecutrix’s pre-trial Statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded on 21.10.2016. After the investigation was completed, a Chargesheet along with its annexures/enclosures was submitted before the learned Trial Court against the present appellant. 4. That the learned Judge, Special Court, POCSO Act, Aizawl Mizoram framed Charge under Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the present appellant on 08.06.2016. Since the appellant pleaded not guilty, the trial was conducted against him. The learned Trial Court examined 8 (eight) prosecution witnesses and after the examination of the present appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 20.10.2016 wherein the appellant denied the allegations made against him and 2(two) defense witnesses were examined. 5. Since the appellant pleaded not guilty, the trial was conducted against him. The learned Trial Court examined 8 (eight) prosecution witnesses and after the examination of the present appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 20.10.2016 wherein the appellant denied the allegations made against him and 2(two) defense witnesses were examined. 5. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned Judgment & Order dated 23.02.2021 by which the present appellant was convicted under Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo 3 (three) years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/-(one thousand) and on failure to pay the fine, another simple imprisonment of 1 (one) month, vide the impugned Order dated 09.03.2021. Aggrieved with the impugned Judgment & Order dated 23.02.2021 and the subsequent impugned Order dated 09.03.2021 passed in S.C. No. 19 of 2017 by the learned Trial Court, the appellant prefers the present appeal 6. Ms. Ruthi Vanlalhruaii, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. submits that the evidences of the prosecution witnesses are indirect evidences except the evidence of the prosecutrix. Although the prosecutrix’s evidence implicated the appellant, the same is uncorroborated and besides, the evidence of the prosecutrix, is untrustworthy and is devoid of a sterling quality. There are serious contradictions which could give the benefit of doubt in favour to the appellant. Whereas the prosecutrix, deposed that appellant sexually assaulted her while there was no one, except on the occasion when the appellant visited prosecutrix’s house to pray for her father who was ill at that time. She stated in her pre-trial statement that the appellant sexually assaulted her more than once even in the presence of her father. That from the medical evidence which is in the record, there is nothing to indicate the sexual assault caused by the appellant upon the victim. That from the evidence of the defense witnesses, it is revealed that the prosecutrix, used to help her father in selling liquor and she is having a loose character. She is also habituated to stealing money from the sale proceed of the liquor and due to which her father used to beat her often. There is no date, month or time period mentioned by the alleged victim. She is also habituated to stealing money from the sale proceed of the liquor and due to which her father used to beat her often. There is no date, month or time period mentioned by the alleged victim. In view of this, the testimony of the prosecutrix, is shaken and untrustworthy and thus the impugned Judgment & Order dated 23.02.2021 and the subsequent impugned Order dated 09.03.2021 passed in S.C. No. 19 of 2017 by the learned Trial Court, is liable to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex court in K. Venkateshwarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2012 8 SCC 73 para 9, RaiSandeep alias Deepu versus State of NCT of Delhi, reported in 2020 3 SCC 443 and Smt. Aibakor Kharbuli vs. State of Meghalaya, reported in 2020 5 GLR 153 para 55. 7. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. PP on the other hand submits that the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C is for the purposeof corroboration of the deposition made later in the court and in the instant case, the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C clearly corroborates the deposition of the prosecutrix. No enmity between the appellant and the prosecutrix, is proved thus there is noreason for the victim to falsely implicate the appellant/accused. PW2 is the counselor at Aizawl Shelter home and she was the person to whom the prosecutrix, first disclosed the incident which is corroborates what the victim girl has deposed. 8. Having considered the submissions of both the learned counsels representing both the parties the evidence adduced in the court is scrutinized meticulously. 9. PW-1 Laldingliani is the grandmother of the victim girl and she has narrated that the parents of the prosecutrix, were divorced and her father was staying at Salem Veng while her mother got re-married to someone else. The prosecutrix, stayed with her but often visited her father at Salem Veng and sometimes stayed overnight with her father. That during the year 2016 the victim girl had mentioned to her that while she had visited her father the accused had sexually assaulted her by touching her private part but she did not make any complaint then as she did not have any suspicion against the accused. That due to their poor financial condition she got her granddaughter admitted at a Shelter home at ITI Veng. That due to their poor financial condition she got her granddaughter admitted at a Shelter home at ITI Veng. A week later she was informed that while her granddaughter was given counseling, she had informed the counselor how the accused had sexually molested her several times. After this she had submitted the FIR to the police which was exhibited as Ext P I. 10. PW-2/Ennet B. Lalthlengliani, has deposed that it was during the month of October while she was working as a Counselor that the prosecutrix stated before her that she was sexually assaulted by the appellant/accused several times by poking his fingers in the private part.She reported this matter to CWC who then informed the grandmother of the prosecutrix, who the submitted the FIR to the Police. 11. PW-3 is the prosecutrix, whose deposition in the court on 14.08.2017 is as paraphrased : “I know the accused. He resides in our locality. He sells Tuibur (liquid tobacco). One day, I went to buy tuibur from him. There was no one else (around), and Pa R.C.-a pulled me towards him. He put his hand under my underwear and poked my private part with his finger. On another occasion, they have come to our house to visit my father, who was unwell at the time. While the others were praying for my father, Pa R.C-a came to me. He put his hand inside my underwear and poked my private part. Once, in the night, he saw me off to my house. On the way, when nobody else was around, he opened his pant, took out his male organ and try to insert into my private part, but I fled from him. One day, while I was in his residence, he asked me to sit on the sofa. He put his hand inside my underwear and touched my private part. I did not want to go to Pa RC-‘s house, but my father sent me there to buy tuibur. I told my grandmother about the matter but she did not believe me then. I was put in a Shelter Home and when members of the C.W.C asked me about it, I told them what had happened.” 12. During Cross-examination her testimony was not shaken and nothing was brought out to discredit her testimony. 13. PW-4and PW-5 deposed that they witnessed the Police seize X’s birth certificate and produced as Exbt. I was put in a Shelter Home and when members of the C.W.C asked me about it, I told them what had happened.” 12. During Cross-examination her testimony was not shaken and nothing was brought out to discredit her testimony. 13. PW-4and PW-5 deposed that they witnessed the Police seize X’s birth certificate and produced as Exbt. M-1.The age of the child is shown as 11 years and her birth certificate seized shows her date of birth as 2.9.2005. Her age is an undisputed fact. 14. PW-6 Dr. V. Lalremruata is the medical doctor who examined the accused and found that he was capable of engaging in sexual intercourse normally. 15. PW-7. Dr. P.C Lalramhluna is the medical doctor who conducted the medical examination of the alleged victim girl and the medical report exhibited as Exbt.P-4 showed that the hymen of the alleged victim girl was found intact but found that there was redness of the labia minora including the fourchette. During cross examination she admitted that the redness could be caused by other reasons than sexual intercourse or assault. 16. PW-8, Sub-Inspector R. Lalthanpuii deposed that she was posted at the Investigative Unit for Crimes Against Women (IUCAW) Cell, Aizawl, in 2016. On 20.10.2016, an FIR was received at the Kulikawn Police Station from Laldingliani stating that her eleven year old granddaughter, X, had been sexually assaulted by the accused, V.L. Rengchhawna, a number of times in 2016. A case was registered and it was endorsed to her for investigation. She examined the informant, alleged victim and other witnesses. X was sent for a medical examination, and she was also produced in Court for her statement to be recorded by a Judicial Magistrate. Her birth certificate was seized. It was found from the material collected in the investigation that a prima facie case was well-established against the accused and a Charge sheet was accordingly filed against him, The Charge sheet included the pretrial statement of the alleged victim recorded by Mr. T. Lalhmachhuana, JMFC., Aizawl, on 21.10.2016 during the course of the investigation, as Exbt. P-5. 17. From the prosecution evidence I find that the testimony of the prosecutrix, did not deviate from her pre-trial statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C which is reproduced as follows:- “I often visited the house of my neighbor, Pa R.C-a (Rengchhawna). T. Lalhmachhuana, JMFC., Aizawl, on 21.10.2016 during the course of the investigation, as Exbt. P-5. 17. From the prosecution evidence I find that the testimony of the prosecutrix, did not deviate from her pre-trial statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C which is reproduced as follows:- “I often visited the house of my neighbor, Pa R.C-a (Rengchhawna). I just spent my leisure time there and I would sometimes purchase the tuibur from them. I would even visit their house with my father. When we visited his house, Pa R.C-a would carry me on his lap, while making me sit on his lap, he would put his hand inside the waistline of my pant and he would insert his figure inside my private part. It would to hurt immensely. He even touched me when my father is around. As he had touched me on various occasions, I no longer remember the exact number of times, While they came to visit my sick father he even touched me while a prayer was said.Mr. R.C-a didnot allow me to tell anyone. He even tried to make me lie down in bed however I somehow managed to escape. I was so fed up of being touched by Mr. RC-a and I decided to tell my grandmother about it. She did not believe me initially, but she again believed me.” 18. I find that her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C is consistent with her deposition recorded in court except for very minor discrepancies The discrepancies do not deviate from the fact that the appellant had inserted his fingers in her private part on more than one occasion. She has been consistent on this fact right from the beginning when she had first informed her grandmother (PW1) who initially disbelieved her thereafter she disclosed to the Counselor ( PW2) when she was in the Shelter Home that she was sexually molested by the accused who poked his finger into her private part, she was consistent with this fact when her statement was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C and also when she testified in the Court. The medical report shows that there was redness of the labia minora including the fourchette supports that testimony of the prosecutrix. For the above reasons, I find that besides the testimony of the prosecutrix, which has a ring of truth, her testimony has been corroborated by PW1,PW2 and the medical report. The medical report shows that there was redness of the labia minora including the fourchette supports that testimony of the prosecutrix. For the above reasons, I find that besides the testimony of the prosecutrix, which has a ring of truth, her testimony has been corroborated by PW1,PW2 and the medical report. The evidence of the prosecutrix, inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and she can be considered to be a sterling witness as held by the Apex court in Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra), where the Apex Court held:- “22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 19. Further, this court find that while ordinarily there is a 'presumption of innocence' vis-a-vis an accused, section 29 of the POCSO Act reverses this position. Section 29 of the POCSO Act creates a 'presumption of guilt' on the part of the accused if he is prosecuted for committing, abetting or attempting certain offences. Section 29 reads as under: “Presumption as to certain offences.--Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Sections 3,5,7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved." 20. In the context of Section 29, the other provisions of the POCSO Act which also need attention is section 30 of that statute, which is extracted herein below for ease of reference: "30. In the context of Section 29, the other provisions of the POCSO Act which also need attention is section 30 of that statute, which is extracted herein below for ease of reference: "30. Presumption of culpable mental state.--(1) In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. 21. After the closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined under 313 Cr.P.C where he denied all the evidence against him explaining that when the alleged victim girl had come to his house to buy “tuibur’ he had reprimanded her for buying “tuibur” when she was just a child and the child had stated that the “tuibur” was for her father. The appellant had also produced 2 (two) defence witness, DW-1 Laltanpuii who is the wife of the accused. She has deposed that she does not believe that her husband would be capable of committing such an offence since her husband is not the type who abuses or teases girls That she sells bread only on Sundays and was at home most of the time.That the victim girl and her father sell liquor that Thakthing veng. That her husband was not sexually active since he was unwell for a long time. 22. DW-2,Vanlalpari has deposed that she knew the accused for a long time. That he was a Mistiri by profession and well acquainted with the neighbors who have no complaint against him. She did not believe the accused/appellant could commit such an offence as he was of good nature and has a good character and is sociable in the neighborhood. She also stated that the father of the prosecutrix, used the services of the victim while selling liquor in the neighborhood by concealing the liquor in the bag carried n the victim. The prosecutrix, is also habituated to stealing money from the sale proceed of the liquor and is often beaten by the father. 23. She also stated that the father of the prosecutrix, used the services of the victim while selling liquor in the neighborhood by concealing the liquor in the bag carried n the victim. The prosecutrix, is also habituated to stealing money from the sale proceed of the liquor and is often beaten by the father. 23. The deposition of both the defense witnesses is to vouch for the character of the appellant and also impute that the character of prosecutrix by stating that she helped her father in selling liquor. I however find that the depositions of the Defense witnesses have not casted any doubt on the truthfulness of the testimony of the victim girl. In the case of Narender Kumar Vs. State (N.C.T of Delhi), reported in (2012) 7 SCC 171 , the Apex Court has held that once the statement of prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the Court, 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 a statement. 24. In the present case, not only does the statement of the prosecutrix inspire confidence, but her evidence has been corroborated by other prosecution witnesses. There is also no suggestion to 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. 25. In view of the above findings and reasoning , I find no grounds to interfere with the findings of the lower court in the Judgment & Order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Special Court, POCSO Act, Aizawl, Mizoram in S.C. No. 19 of 2017 convicting the appellant under section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentencing him to undergo 3 (three) years of simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-(rupees one thousand)only and in default of payment of the fine, another S.I. for 1 (one) month in the order dated 09.03.2021. 26. Crl.A. No. 16 of 2021 accordingly is dismissed and stands disposed.