JUDGMENT : Shamima Jahan, J. Heard Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. Mary L Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Mizoram and Mr. Lalramdinthara, learned counsel for the informant. 1. This is a criminal appeal filed from Jail under Section 383 of the Cr.P.C against the Judgment & Order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Special Court, POCSO Act 2012, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, Mizoram in Sessions Case No. 70/2023 under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (here-in-after shortly referred to as “the POCSO Act”). A. BASIC FACTS 2. The prosecution story as unfolded is that an FIR was lodged by the mother of the victim stating inter alia that her son, 17 years of age, was sexually molested by her neighbor i.e. the appellant ever since her son was 10 years old. She further stated that the appellant sexually molested him by making him suck his private part and that he makes their private parts brush each other and further that he would also often ejaculate on her son’s body. On receipt of the said FIR, the police registered the same as BKN-Police Case No. 432 of 2023, dated 12.07.2023 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act on 12.07.2023. After complying with the required procedures, the Special Judge, POCSO, Mizoram, Aizawl, framed the charge against the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and the same was read over and explained to the appellant to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and the trial was conducted. 3. During the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses including the Investigating Officer (I.O). Thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and on completion of the trial, the learned Special Court convicted the appellant mainly on the statement of the victim under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 20 years with a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of the payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo R.I. for another period of two (2) months. B. ARGUMENTS 4. Assailing the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Court as mentioned above, Mr. 3000/- and in default of the payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo R.I. for another period of two (2) months. B. ARGUMENTS 4. Assailing the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Court as mentioned above, Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, the Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant argued that the victim cannot be believed as it is in the evidence of the victim’s mother that he is in the habit of telling lies. He also argued that during his examination by the medical Doctor, the victim stated that the incident happened on 10.06.2023 and then he went on to say that he was sexually assaulted since he was 9 to 10 years old. Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga therefore states that there is discrepancy in the evidence on record. He further stated that the victim revealed that the accused was his neighbor which is also reflected in the sketch map prepared by the investigating agency and if that be the case, it cannot be said that over the years it was not known to anyone nor any suspicion arose regarding the offence. Furthermore, he deposed that Section 164 CrPC statement of the victim cannot be relied on, in view of the fact that statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C is not a substantive evidence. He placed the following decisions to substantiate his point. (a) Sanglura vs. State of Mizoram & Anr., delivered in Crl. A. No. 4/2023. (b) K. Venkateshwarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 8 SCC 73 . 5. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Mizoram, while replying to the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that as placed by Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga that there is discrepancy in the medical report, she stated that there is none in as much as, the date of reporting of the incident was 10.06.2023 which was not the date of the alleged sexual violence upon the victim. The said date was when the victim revealed the incident to the members of the Joint Action Committee (JAC), on being apprehended by them in pursuant to the complaint given by the accused about stealing by the victim. As such, she submitted that there was no discrepancy. The said date was when the victim revealed the incident to the members of the Joint Action Committee (JAC), on being apprehended by them in pursuant to the complaint given by the accused about stealing by the victim. As such, she submitted that there was no discrepancy. She further stated that two witnesses from the JAC were examined as PW-3 & 4 and one of them i.e., PW-3 stated that the accused admitted his illegal actions on being pressurized by the JAC members and on the other hand, PW-4 denied the suggestion that the accused admitted his actions because they threatened him. The said discrepancy was not considered by the learned Trial Court. She further stated that the accused in his Section 313 CrPC statement stated that he knew the victim since 2021 whereas it is in the evidence that the victim was subjected to sexual offence since he was 10 years old. She also stated that the victim was staying at a different place than that of the accused. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as such, submitted that the evidence on record was not considered properly by the learned Trial Court and as such, she prayed that the trial be conducted afresh by the learned Special Court. 6. The informant was represented by Mr. Lalramdinthara, a Legal Aid Counsel and he submits that the foundational facts required to be established in a case under the POCSO Act are in fact led in enough terms. He stated that since the deposition of the victim is enough to bring home the guilt in a case under POCSO Act, the learned Court had rightly convicted the appellant under Section 6 of the said Act. He stated that the victim in the instant case had given consistent statement throughout. He, as such, stated that as the foundational facts are established, Section 29 of the POCSO Act would come into play i.e., the presumption against the appellant which the appellant had not rebutted and therefore he states that the conviction may be upheld. He places reliance on the following two judgments to substantiate his argument. (1) Phool Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh delivered in Crl. A. No. 1520/2021 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. (2) Latu Singh vs. State of Mizoram, reported in 2021 (1) GLR 70. 7. He places reliance on the following two judgments to substantiate his argument. (1) Phool Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh delivered in Crl. A. No. 1520/2021 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. (2) Latu Singh vs. State of Mizoram, reported in 2021 (1) GLR 70. 7. We have considered the argument advanced at the bar by the learned counsel for all the parties and have also carefully gone through the evidence available on record. Since the basic argument of the appellant’s counsel is to the effect that evidence adduced by the prosecutions are wholly insufficient to establish the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, we propose to briefly analyze the evidence brought on record. C. ANALYSIS 8. The clinching evidence in the instant case is the evidence of the victim himself and he was examined as PW-2. He stated before the Trial Court that his father passed away in the year 2019 and that he and his elder brother, his younger sister and his mother are living together at Zemabawk, Bethel Veng. He, thereafter, stated that the appellant whom he used to call as Uncle was his neighbor and was living alone and that since he was 10 years old, he used to visit the appellant and used to massage his body on appellant’s request. He also stated that after the massage gets over, the appellant makes him touch his private part and the appellant used to masturbate by using the victim’s hand and his body. He further stated that the appellant puts his private part inside his mouth many a times and discharge his semen on his body. The victim also stated that he used to spend many nights in the house of the appellant even when his mother objects and whenever he stays with the appellant, the appellant uses him to masturbate. The victim, thereafter, stated that because of the said actions of the appellant he avoids him but he did not reveal the incident to anyone. He thereafter stated that when the Joint Action Committee (JAC) interrogated him about the stealing of money from the appellant by him, he revealed the incident. In his cross-examination, he reiterated the statements made in his examination-in-chief and further stated that he used to steal appellant’s money and that the appellant never inserted his private part into his anus region. He thereafter stated that when the Joint Action Committee (JAC) interrogated him about the stealing of money from the appellant by him, he revealed the incident. In his cross-examination, he reiterated the statements made in his examination-in-chief and further stated that he used to steal appellant’s money and that the appellant never inserted his private part into his anus region. He however denied that he accused the appellant about the incident for revealing that he stole appellant’s money. 9. The victim was examined by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C and he revealed during the said examination that the appellant forcefully put his private part inside his mouth and that the appellant takes off his clothes and the victim’s and moves his private part around the victim’s. He also stated that the appellant would lie on top of him and thrust his private part against the victim’s and ejaculate. He further revealed that when he was young the appellant threatened him and asked him not to reveal the incident to his parents and that the appellant also tempts him that he will purchase a vehicle and give it to the victim. Thereafter, he also stated that he stole Rs. 12,000/- from the appellant as he wanted to escape from his clutches and that when he was apprehended by JAC, he told them the entire incident. Furthermore, he stated that on earlier occasions too, he stole money from him only to escape from the appellant. 10. In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the victim stated consistent statements before the I.O, in as much as he stated that the appellant used to visit his house since he was 10 years of age and that the appellant makes him massage his body and touch his private part. He also stated that the appellant used to put his private part into his mouth and that he ejaculates on his body and also that the appellant used to masturbate by using him many a times. The victim however on a question put by the I.O stated that the appellant did not insert his private part in his anus. The victim further revealed that to escape from the appellant he sometimes stayed at his friend’s house and that when the members of the JAC apprehended him, he revealed the entire incident and also that he used to steal money from the appellant. The victim further revealed that to escape from the appellant he sometimes stayed at his friend’s house and that when the members of the JAC apprehended him, he revealed the entire incident and also that he used to steal money from the appellant. 11. These are the statements of the victim right from the inception i.e., before the I.O and then before the Trial Court. 12. The mother of the victim was examined as PW-1 and she stated before the Trial Court that the appellant sexually assaulted her son since he was 10 years old and also stated that the appellant puts his private part inside the mouth of her son and rubs his private part with his son’s private part. She however is the hearsay witness and whatever she stated, she stated as she heard it from her son. 13. A member of the JAC was examined as PW-3 and he stated that the JAC received the complaint from the appellant that money was stolen by the victim and they were requested to take necessary action. He then stated that when he and other members of the JAC were searching for the victim, they found the victim at Kepran village and apprehended him from the said village. The victim on apprehension had stated to them about the aforesaid actions of the appellant and that he informed the matter to the mother of the victim and subsequently, the FIR was lodged. He, in his cross-examination, however stated that the victim used to steal money from the accused and also stated that the accused admitted his actions as stated by the victim not on his violation but on pressure. 14. PW-4 is the Assistant Secretary of JAC and he corroborated the statement of PW-3. However, in his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the accused admitted his actions because he was forced. 15. PW-5 & 6 were examined by the prosecution only to bring home the fact that the victim was minor at the time of occurrence. The birth certificate of the victim was exhibited as material exhibit No. 1 and the same demonstrates that the date of birth of the victim was on 21.05.2006 and in that case the victim would be 17 years and 1 month at the time when the first information report was lodged. 16. The birth certificate of the victim was exhibited as material exhibit No. 1 and the same demonstrates that the date of birth of the victim was on 21.05.2006 and in that case the victim would be 17 years and 1 month at the time when the first information report was lodged. 16. The Investigating Officer was examined as PW-9 and he deposed that on 12.06.2023, the FIR was received from the mother of the victim wherein, the mother had stated that her son was subjected to sexual offence by the accused person since he was 10 years old. He thereafter in his normal course of duties visited the place of occurrence, examined the victim and other witnesses, prepared the sketch map and forwarded the victim to the CJM, Aizawl for recording his judicial statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He also stated that on the same day itself i.e., on 12.06.2023, the appellant was arrested. He, as such, on completion of his investigation submitted charge-sheet before the Court. He in his, cross-examination stated that the victim admitted that he used to steal money from the appellant on many occasions and that the appellant had submitted FIR against the victim for the said stealing. The I.O also stated that the victim has the habit of telling lies to save himself. These are the evidence placed forth by the prosecution. 17. The defence did not adduce any evidence on his behalf except his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He stated in the said statements that he knew the victim since the year 2021 and that he never inserted his private part into the mouth of the victim and that he never rubbed his private part’s against victim’s and also that he never discharged his semen on the body of the victim. 18. In the backdrop of the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution, this Court is called upon to examine as to whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. D. FINDINGS 19. It is a settled position of law that under the cases of POCSO ACT or under Section 376 Cr.P.C, the testimony of the sole prosecutrix or the victim is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused person, provided the same is wholly reliable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided this law point in a number of cases. It is a settled position of law that under the cases of POCSO ACT or under Section 376 Cr.P.C, the testimony of the sole prosecutrix or the victim is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused person, provided the same is wholly reliable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided this law point in a number of cases. The relevant paragraphs in one of such a case i.e. in Nirmal Prem Kumar vs. State, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 260, are reproduced below:- “11. Law is well settled that generally speaking, oral testimony may be classified into three categories, viz.: (i) wholly reliable; (ii) wholly unreliable; (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The first two category of cases may not pose serious difficulty for the Court in arriving at its conclusion(s). However, in the third category of cases, the Court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration of any material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, as a requirement of the rule of prudence. 12. In Ganesan v. State, this Court held that the sole testimony of the victim, if found reliable and trustworthy, requires no corroboration and may be sufficient to invite conviction of the accused..................... 15. What flows from the aforesaid decisions is that in cases where witnesses are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the Court should strive to find out the true genesis of the incident. The Court can rely on the victim as a “sterling witness” without further corroboration, but the quality and credibility must be exceptionally high. The statement of the prosecutrix ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end (minor inconsistencies excepted), from the initial statement to the oral testimony, without creating any doubt qua the prosecution’s case.” 20. In view of the above, this Court now proceeds to test the testimony of the victim as to whether it is fully reliable. It is also seen from above as mandated by law that the evidence of the victim has to be seen from the very inception that is his evidence before the Police and then before the Magistrate and then before the Trial Court. 21. It is also seen from above as mandated by law that the evidence of the victim has to be seen from the very inception that is his evidence before the Police and then before the Magistrate and then before the Trial Court. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions had held that if the statement of the victim is consistent before all the authorities right from the beginning to his statement before the Trial Court and the same inspires confidence before the learned Court, the same can be the sole basis of conviction. In Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs. State of Nct of Delhi, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the following terms:- “15. In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber 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 everyone 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. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone 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. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can 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.” 22. In a subsequent decision also, in Nirmal Premkumar vs. State (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated and had relied on the findings and conclusions given in the above decision. 23. In the case at hand, it is seen that the victim in his statement before the Investigating Officer had stated in no unclear terms that when he was 10 years old, the appellant used to make him massage his body and makes him touch his private parts and that the appellant masturbates using the victim’s body. He also stated before the I.O that the appellant used to put his private parts into his mouth. Furthermore, he stated that being scared of his actions, the victim sometimes flees to his friend’s house and that he steals money from the accused too. Before the Learned Magistrate too, in his examination under Section 164 CrPC, the victim stated in similar lines. He stated that the accused forcefully put his private parts inside his mouth and that the accused moves his private parts around his and thrust his private parts against him and ejaculates. Before the Learned Magistrate too, in his examination under Section 164 CrPC, the victim stated in similar lines. He stated that the accused forcefully put his private parts inside his mouth and that the accused moves his private parts around his and thrust his private parts against him and ejaculates. He also stated that he decided to steal Rs. 12,000/- from him and he tried to escape from his clutches and that he was finally apprehended by the JAC and he divulged the entire incident to them. Before the learned Trial Court, the victim had stated similarly as he stated before the I.O as well as the Magistrate. He deposed before the Trial Court that the accused makes him massage his body, touch his private parts, masturbate by using his hand and body as well as puts his private parts inside the victim’s mouth a number of times and discharges his semen on his body. He also revealed that he unable to bear his actions, spends nights at his friends place to avoid the appellant and when JAC apprehended him, he revealed the entire incident to them. 24. The aforesaid statements reveal that the victim was consistent in his statements before all the authorities. There is nothing to disbelief the appellant inasmuch as, as far as the basic facts of the offence are concerned, he was very consistent in stating the same. Little discrepancy here and there would not make the statements unbelievable, whereas the same infuses truthfulness. A bare perusal of the statements given by the victim would show that the facts viz., the appellant putting his private parts in his mouth, the appellant making him massage his body, the appellant making him touch his private parts, the appellant masturbating by using the victim’s hand and body, the appellant discharging his semen on his body, were all stated before all the authorities. 25. The contention made by the learned Amicus Curiae that the victim has the habit of stating lies cannot be stretched to the extent that he will lie about the instant offence in question also. The Latin phrase “Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus” which means that false in one thing, false in everything is not applicable in the justice delivery system of our country. The Latin phrase “Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus” which means that false in one thing, false in everything is not applicable in the justice delivery system of our country. The victim although was stated of having the habit of telling lies cannot be construed to have lied about the offence committed by the appellant since his 10 years of age. The said aspect was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.G Krishnamurthy vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Karnataka 3137 and the Hon’ble Court had held as follows:- “The principle governing “Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus” has got no application to the Courts in India. Therefore, it is the duty of the Court to remove the chaff from the grain in its pursuit for truth” In the instant case, it is seen that the victim although has the habit of telling lies but in his examination before the learned Courts or before the police he had stated that he used to steal money from the appellant. The victim could have lied in this aspect also i.e. about stealing from the appellant. Therefore, it cannot be said that victim would lie in every matters. As such, we record the finding that the victim had stated the facts and was consistent in his statement and there is nothing to disbelief him as far as the offence is concerned. 26. As far as the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the matter may be remanded for denovo trial, the same will not be very conducive in the instant case in view of the fact that the learned Trial Court was correct in holding that the victim’s statements are reliable and there was no fault in relying upon the same. It is also a settled position of law that de-novo trial be ordered only when the Trial Court fails to follow proper procedures or vitiate due process or make significant errors. In the instant case, there are none and as such, this Court proceeds to dispose off the same. 27. It is required under the law that if the statements of the victim are not consistent before the authorities, then in that case, corroboration may be looked for, from the other evidences on record. In the instant case, the victim’s statements are consistent and no corroboration as such, is required to substantiate the victim’s statement. 27. It is required under the law that if the statements of the victim are not consistent before the authorities, then in that case, corroboration may be looked for, from the other evidences on record. In the instant case, the victim’s statements are consistent and no corroboration as such, is required to substantiate the victim’s statement. Although no corroboration is required, however, in the instant case there are in the form of depositions of the member and the Asst. Secretary of the JAC who had stated that immediately on apprehension of the victim, the victim divulged that the accused had sexually harassed him over the years. This piece of evidence can be considered relevant under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as res-gestae evidence. Section 6 is reproduced below:- “6. Relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction. Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.” The said provision makes it amply clear that the statement of the victim before the members of JAC is part of the same transaction with the facts of the instant case and the same corroborates the prosecution case. 28. Further, it is seen from the records that the victim was threatened by the appellant, so as, not to divulge the incident to anyone and the victim being minor and the accused being of 65 years of age, the victim was in fact frightened and he did not state to anyone be his mother or to his friends. He stated for the first time before the members of the JAC when he was apprehended on charges of stealing money from the appellant. A minor boy on being apprehended of charges against him cannot be accepted to immediately make up a story about sexual offence that too an unnatural offence committed by a person who is much elder to him. Furthermore, his saying to the members of the JAC about the sexual offence immediately upon his apprehension form part of the same transaction and becomes relevant facts as provided under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. 29. Furthermore, his saying to the members of the JAC about the sexual offence immediately upon his apprehension form part of the same transaction and becomes relevant facts as provided under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. 29. The further argument of the Amicus Curiae that statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C is not a substantive evidence and cannot be relied upon is not acceptable in view of the fact that although there is no dispute that statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC is not a substantive evidence but in cases under POCSO or Section 376 CrPC, statements of the victim made before the Magistrate becomes relevant in order to see the consistency of the statements made by the victim. 30. Further, to reach to a conclusion as to whether the conviction of the appellant is proper under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, this Court would like to record the following findings. Section 6 is quoted below:- “6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault .-- (1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine, or with death. (2) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.” The definition of aggravated penetrative sexual assault is provided under Section 5 of the POCSO Act and in clause “l”, it is provided as under:- “(l) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on the child more than once or repeatedly…….” The definition of penetrative sexual assault is given under Section 3 of the POCSO Act. Section 3 of the POCSO Act is reproduced below:- “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………. Section 3 of the POCSO Act is reproduced below:- “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………. (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 to such person or any other person.” 31. It is seen from the records of the case, more specifically the statement of the victim that the appellant puts his private part into mouth of the victim a number of times and that he makes the victim massage his body and touch his private part and also used to masturbate by using the victim’s hand and body. This action of the appellant comes within the provisions of Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 as mentioned here in above. Further, since the minimum punishment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is 20 years, the same is awarded by the learned Trial Court. 32. As far as the age of the victim is concerned, it is in the evidence that the victim was 17 years at the time when the incident was revealed and that the victim had stated that since his 10 years of age, he has been subjected to aforesaid sexual offence by the appellant. Furthermore, there is no challenge to the age of the victim by defence. As such, it can safely be held that the victim was minor at the time of occurrence. Therefore, there is enough evidence on record against the appellant for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. E. CONCLUSIONS 33. In view of the discussions made in the forgoing paragraphs, it cannot be said that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. As such, after analyzing the evidence, we find ourselves in agreement with the conclusions of the learned Trial Court. 34. E. CONCLUSIONS 33. In view of the discussions made in the forgoing paragraphs, it cannot be said that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. As such, after analyzing the evidence, we find ourselves in agreement with the conclusions of the learned Trial Court. 34. For the reasons stated herein above, we affirmed the conviction of appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act as well as the sentence awarded to him by the learned Court below. 35. Further, in appreciation of the assistance provided by the learned Amicus Curiae, his fee of Rs. 9,000-/- is to be provided by the Mizoram State Legal Services Authority. The fee of the learned Legal Aid Counsel should be given to him as per the prescribed norms. 36. Send back the LCR.