Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1085 (GAU)

Lalroenga Hmunhmeltha v. State of Mizoram

2025-06-20

MARLI VANKUNG, NELSON SAILO

body2025
JUDGMENT : Marli Vankung, J. Heard Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. This is a jail appeal filed against the Judgment & Order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Champhai in Criminal trial No. 37/2023 wherein, the appellant was convicted u/s 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced vide Order dated 03.08.2023 to undergo R.I for a period of 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) in default Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months. 3. Brief facts of the case is that an FIR was filed by the informant on 22.10.2022 to the effect that from the year 2020, Mr. Lalroenga (appellant) of Hmunhmeltha, Champhai had sexual intercourse with his minor niece ‘X’ aged 13 years a multiple times. They came to learn of this incident when her grandmother and other relatives caught them sleeping together (an mu dun lai) inside their shop at New Champhai on 17.10.2022 at around 5 a.m. The case was registered as CPI-P.S Case No. 143/2022 dated 22.10.2022 u/s 6 of the POCSO Act r/w 376 AB IPC. During investigation of the case, the case I.O visited the P.O and examined the victim ‘X’ and other witnesses. The victim/’X’ was sent for recording of her statement u/s 164 CrPC and she was also forwarded to the Medical Officer, District Hospital, Champhai for medical examination. Her birth certificate was also seized wherein, her date of birth was recorded as 31.01.2009. The accused was arrested on 22.10.2022. On receiving the medical examination reported, the case I.O found Prima Facie case against the accused/appellant u/s 6 of the POCSO Act r/w 376 AB IPC and accordingly submitted the charge sheet and the case was sent for trial. 4. The learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Champhai framed charge u/s 6 of the POCSO Act r/w Section 376 AB IPC, against the accused appellant on 11.04.2023. The trial then commenced and as many as 5 prosecution witnesses were examined. The accused was examined under section 313 CrPC and no defense witnesses were produced. 4. The learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Champhai framed charge u/s 6 of the POCSO Act r/w Section 376 AB IPC, against the accused appellant on 11.04.2023. The trial then commenced and as many as 5 prosecution witnesses were examined. The accused was examined under section 313 CrPC and no defense witnesses were produced. On hearing the learned counsels for both the parties, the learned Trial Court found the accused/appellant guilty of the charged u/s 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a term as already noted above. Aggrieved, the instant jail appeal is filed by the accused/appellant. 5. Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant, submitted that the learned Trial Court had convicted the appellant u/s 6 of the POCSO Act by relying on the sole testimony of the victim ‘X’ and the medical report but however, the testimony of the victim is not reliable because of the inconsistencies found in the deposition of the victim ‘X’ and her statements recorded u/s 164 CrPC. He submitted that her deposition was also inconsistent with the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the victim ‘X’ had mentioned the date of the incident when the accused/appellant had supposedly committed sexual assault on her as 17.10.2022 but however, she has not mentioned the dates 20.10.2022 and 21.10.2022 which was mentioned by PW1, who is the complainant. He further submitted that there are also inconsistencies regarding the place of the incident wherein, in the statement of the victim ’X’ before the case I.O, the incident happened near the Community Hall, Venglai while, in her deposition, she stated that the incident happened inside the YMA Hall, Venglai. The learned Amicus Curiae also submitted that in her statement u/s 164 CrPC, she had mentioned that the first incident happened on September, 2017 whereas in her deposition, she had mentioned the date of the first incident as on 17.10.2022. He also submitted that her statement before the case I.O which was more detailed and she mentioned the dates of the incidents as on 17.10.2022, 20.10.2022 & 21.10.2022. The learned Amicus Curiae also pointed out that PW1/informant, had also mentioned the date when the accused appellant and the alleged victim slept together in the shop as on 17.10.2022, but in his cross examination he had admitted that the incident happened on 17.09.2022. 6. The learned Amicus Curiae also pointed out that PW1/informant, had also mentioned the date when the accused appellant and the alleged victim slept together in the shop as on 17.10.2022, but in his cross examination he had admitted that the incident happened on 17.09.2022. 6. The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that the medical examination report shows that the tear in the hymen is an old tear and therefore, if the accused/appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim ‘X’ on 21.10.2022 and she was examined by the medical doctor on 22.10.2022, the hymen cannot said to be old tear and further no marks of injury was found on her body. The learned Amicus Curiae thus submits that the medical report showing that the torn hymen was old tear cannot be connected with the incident case wherein, she was examined by the Medical Officer on the next date of the alleged incident. The learned Amicus Curiae also led this Court to the evidence adduced by PW1/Informant, who, in his cross examination, had stated that the victim ‘X’ did not come home for about 1-2 nights and that the victim ‘X’ eloped with Mr. Enkawla of Tlangsam. Thus, the victim ‘X’ was having sexual intercourse with another person and the tear of the hymen was due to her relationship with another person and the old tear found in the hymen is not directly connected to the accused/appellant. 7. The learned Amicus Curiaealso submitted that the learned Trial court, had mentioned that “the medical officer also stated that her medical examination result shows that the victim was raped as her vagina was penetrated” which is beyond what was deposed by the Medical Officer, who deposed in the Court as PW4. 8. The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that the grandmother, who is stated to have witnessed the accused/appellant and the victim girl sleeping together in the shop is not made a prosecution witness whereas, she is an important prosecution witness to corroborate the evidence of the victim ‘X’ whose testimony is unreliable due to the discrepancies on the dates and the chain of events. 9. The learned Amicus Curiae has relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Harvinder Singh alias Bachhu Vs. 9. The learned Amicus Curiae has relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Harvinder Singh alias Bachhu Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2023) SCC online SC 1347, wherein it was observed that failure on the part of the prosecution in not examining a witness, though material, by itself would not vitiate the trial. However, when facts are so glaring and with the witnesses available, particularly when they are likely to give a different story, the Court shall take adequate note of it. 10. Per contra, Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, submitted that the testimony of the victim ‘X’ is not shaken during the cross examination. She submitted that though there are some discrepancies in her deposition recorded before the court and her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC, these discrepancies are minor discrepancies and the material fact that the accused/appellant had committed sexual intercourse upon the victim ‘X’ is not shaken. She submitted that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the chain of events that led to the filing of the FIR, is established and the chain of action continues wherein, the victim ‘X’ stated that the accused/appellant had sexual intercourse with her numerous times, i.e. on 17.09.2022 which continued till 21.10.2022 and which led to the filing of the FIR on 22.10.2022. She submitted that the prosecutrix had stated that the accused/appellant had sexual intercourse with her more than 5 times and this statement was not crossed by the defense during cross examination. She further submitted that even if the victim ‘X’ is said to have a loose character, this is immaterial in proving that the accused/appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim, who was aged only about 11 years when the first incident occurred and continued till she was about 13 years. She further submitted that one cannot expect a 13 year old child to know about the exact dates of the incident. The learned Addl. PP also explained that the YMA hall, Venglai is also known as the Community Hall where the accused appellant had sex with the victim girl for the first time. 11. The learned Addl. She further submitted that one cannot expect a 13 year old child to know about the exact dates of the incident. The learned Addl. PP also explained that the YMA hall, Venglai is also known as the Community Hall where the accused appellant had sex with the victim girl for the first time. 11. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submitted that the evidence of the informant/PW1 shows that he was informed about the incident at around 4:00 a.m. by his mother over phone and later, at 5:00 a.m. when he reached the place he was fully informed about the incident. She submitted that at 4:00 a.m, it would be still dark and therefore, when PW1 stated that he had gone to the shop the next day, it would mean that it was on the same day. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor also submitted that the deposition of PW 1 is corroborated in the examination of the victim child where she had stated that on 17.10.2022, the accused/appellant had written a small chit telling her to come to him in the shop at around 11:00 p.m, her grandmother found out about the incident at around 4:00 a.m while they were sleeping in the shop. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submitted that the same is also corroborated by the evidence of PW6, who stated that the informant/PW1 informed him that his mother had contacted him on 17.10.2022 and told him about the incident. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor also submitted that the distance between Hmunhmeltha and New Champhai Venglai is about 6 kms and the victim ‘X’ used to ride a scooter and go to the place of the accused/appellant. 12. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has established the foundational facts and there are no major discrepancies to discredit the evidence of the prosecutrix. She submitted that u/s 29 of the POCSO Act, the accused/appellant has not produced and the evidence to prove his innocence. In support of her submission, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lok Mal Alias Loku Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 470 (Para 16 & 17) She has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sham Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 34 (para 6). State of Haryana, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 34 (para 6). 13. Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that he will adopt the submissions made by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and further submitted that even if there was consensual sexual relationship between the accused/appellant and the victim ‘X’, the accused/appellant is still guilty of committing an offence u/s 6 of the POCSO Act since the victim girl is below 18 years of age, the learned Legal Aid Counsel has relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, reported in (2024) SCC online SC 2055 (para 17, 19) and Ganesan Vs. State, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 573 (para 10.1) wherein it was observed that even if the girl is a girl of easy virtue or a girl habituated to sexual intercourse, it may not be a ground to absolve the accused from the charge of rape. 14. In order to fully appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties, we find it appropriate to briefly highlight the prosecution evidence adduced before the learned Trial Court. 15. PW-1, C. Lalramhluna deposed to the effect that on the morning of 17.10.2022, his mother, Smt. H. Zorami, called him on his mobile phone and asked him to come to their shop at New Champhai. When he arrived, this mother informed him that his niece, the victim ‘X’, and the accused Lalroenga, had slept together inside the shop. They then questioned ‘X’, who stated that she and the accused, Lalroenga, had been in a sexual relationship since 2020, when she was 11 years old. Since the accused Lalroenga, and Pw1's sister, Ramchullovi, were living together without being legally married, he and his family told the accused not to have any further sexual relations with the victim ‘X’. However, the accused Lalroenga, again enticed the victim and took her to Hmunhmeltha on the nights of 20.10.2022 and 21.10.2022, where he sexually assaulted her again. Therefore, he submitted an FIR to the Champhai Police Station on 22.10.2022, at 8:30 PM, requesting action against the accused, Lalroenga. Exbt P1 as the copy of FIR. 16. During his cross examination he stated that his niece (victim) did not disclose the alleged incident in the instant case directly to him. Therefore, he submitted an FIR to the Champhai Police Station on 22.10.2022, at 8:30 PM, requesting action against the accused, Lalroenga. Exbt P1 as the copy of FIR. 16. During his cross examination he stated that his niece (victim) did not disclose the alleged incident in the instant case directly to him. He admitted that after his mother told him of the incident on 17 September and the next morning, he immediately rushed to the shop at New Champhai and his niece (victim) and the accused person, were still in the shop. Apart from him lecturing/reprimanding his niece (Victim),he did not take any action. He denied the suggestion that while his niece (victim) and her family resided at Venglai, she did not come home for about 1-2 nights and they looked for her at Chhangphut Field and that she had connections with other boys. He admitted that he knew a person named Enkawla of Tlangsam and that his niece (victim) had eloped with Enkawla of Tlangsam and their families had also looked for her when she did not return to her house for about 2-3 nights. He admitted that he did not submit an FIR against Enkawla of Tlangsam. He denied the suggestion that he did not submit an FIR on the morning of 18.09.2022 (the day his mother had called him about the alleged incident at New Champhai) because his niece (victim) had a habit of roaming around with boys in the past. He admitted that the incident of the rape of his niece (victim) at Hmunhmeltha (home of the accused) had taken place two times, however he could not recall the dates of the incident. He denied the suggestion that his mother has a personal hatred towards the accused as they (his mother, his sister who is a victim's mother and the accused) all stay together in one household without any legalization of marriage between them. 17. PW-2, Victim ‘X’ on being asked by the Trial Court deposed to the effect that she used to look at the accused/appellant as a father but after she started using her mom's phone, he started talking to her in a sexual manner. He asked her whether she was still a virgin or not. The first time he slept with her was in the year 2020, she does not remember the exact time but it was somewhere in the month of September. He asked her whether she was still a virgin or not. The first time he slept with her was in the year 2020, she does not remember the exact time but it was somewhere in the month of September. One night they were looking for her mom's money which she had lost and they both went out searching for it outside the house, then he took her inside YMA Hall, Venglai. He then undressed her and made her lie down. She told him that she did not want as it was not a good thing. He then told her that it was not going to hurt long. He then undressed himself and forced himself upon her. She cannot recall exactly how many times she slept with her but it was more than 5 times. When the prosecutrix/PW-2 was asked by the court about the last incident that led to the FIR filed by her uncle, she deposed that on 17.10.2022, while her mother was hospitalised in Aizawl and she was in the house with her grandmother, Lalroenga/accused was spending the night inside their shop at New Champhai. At around 5:00PM, while they were all in the shop he sent her a small chit, asking her to meet him in the shop at night at around 11:00 PM. After her grandmother and her other siblings were asleep she got up took out their scooty and went to the shop to meet him. They had sex that night. When her grandmother found out that she was not in the house, they suspected that she was in the shop, so at around 4:00 AM, she along with her cousin U Mama came to the shop to call her home. When asked, she stated that she did not have any warm feelings for the accused whom she treated as her father. Her mother did not know about her relationship with the accused and the accused used to tell her to behave in such a manner so that her mother and her grandmother would not understand anything. Exbt P2 is her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC 18. During her cross examination, PW-2 stated that she was 14 years of age. She did not deny the suggestion that she used to have fear for Pa Mapuia (accused) and because of that she used to go whenever he called her but she never disclosed this to anyone. Exbt P2 is her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC 18. During her cross examination, PW-2 stated that she was 14 years of age. She did not deny the suggestion that she used to have fear for Pa Mapuia (accused) and because of that she used to go whenever he called her but she never disclosed this to anyone. She stated that she knew the person named Enkawla from Tlangsam who was introduced to her by Pa Mapuia (accused). She admitted the suggestion that she had spent around four days and nights at Tlangsam at her Mom's friend's house. She told her mother about this but she does not know whether her mother told the other members of the family. She stated that she went to Hmunhmeltha sometime in October 2022 since she was called by Pa Mapuia (accused) and she was not forced to go there by Pa Mapuia. She admitted the suggestion that Pa Mapuia (accused) used to threatened her by saying that he would tell her grandmother and her mother about their affairs and being afraid of that she used to go to him whenever he called her. 19. PW-3, Lalkhawngaihzeli, stated to the effect that on 25.10.2022, around 10:00 AM, the Champhai Police seized the victim's birth certificate and the victim's date of birth is 31.01.2009 and Exbt P3 is her signature. 20. PW-5, Dr. C. Lalramengi, deposed to the effect that on 22.10.2022, the victim was brought to her for medical examination. The victim told her that the accused was her mother's live-in partner. She also stated that the accused had been having sexual intercourse with her since 2020 and 21.10.2022 was the last time she had intercourse with the accused. Because the victim had changed her clothes, no semen was found and since she was having her menstruation, proper examination could not be done. However, according to her findings, the hymen was not intact (old tear). There were neither bruise on her body nor abrasions on her private parts. Exbt. P4 is the medical report. During cross examination by the learned defence counsel, she admitted that the victim was neither nervous nor shaken. She narrated the incident to her normally and that there was no DNA examination taken to proof that the accused had raped the victim. 21. Exbt. P4 is the medical report. During cross examination by the learned defence counsel, she admitted that the victim was neither nervous nor shaken. She narrated the incident to her normally and that there was no DNA examination taken to proof that the accused had raped the victim. 21. PW-6, S.I. Liansangpuii deposed to the effect that on 22.10.2022, at 8:30 PM, C. Lalramhluna from Venglai Champhai submitted an FIR to the Champhai Police Station by stating that on 17.10.2022, at 5:00 AM, the victim's grandmother found the victim and the accused sleeping together (mu dun) inside their shop in New Champhai and further stated that his niece (the victim) had been sexually assaulted by the accused, Lalroenga, multiple times since 2020. Based on this, the case was registered. During her investigation, she examined the complainant, the victim, all available witnesses and recording their statements. The complainant C. Lalramhluna stated that on the morning of 17.10.2022, his mother contacted him through telephone and told him to come to their shop located at New Champhai. When he arrived, his mother told him that the victim and the accused Lalroenga had slept together inside their shop. He then asked about the matter to the victim and she told him that she and the accused had sexual intercourse since the year 2020 when she was 11 years only. He then submitted FIR against the accused. 22. PW-6 examined the victim and recorded her statement in the Child Corner Room at the Champhai Police Station. The victim told her that the accused, Lalroenga, was her mother's boyfriend and he has been living with them since August 2020. Towards the end of 2020, she went out with Lalroenga, and they had sexual intercourse for the first time near the Community Hall, Venglai, beside a motor vehicle. From that night onwards, they frequently had sexual intercourse whenever they had a chance. On the night of 17.10.2022, Lalroenga asked her to meet him inside their shop, and they had sex again and slept together. The next morning, at 5:00 AM, while they were still in the shop, her grandmother saw them and warned her not to meet Lalroenga again. However, on the night of 20.10.2022, at around 11:00 PM, she went to meet Lalroenga at Hmunhmeltha and had sex again. The next morning, at 5:00 AM, while they were still in the shop, her grandmother saw them and warned her not to meet Lalroenga again. However, on the night of 20.10.2022, at around 11:00 PM, she went to meet Lalroenga at Hmunhmeltha and had sex again. On the night of 21.10.2022, she again went to Lalroenga's residence and left him around 3:00 AM after having sex with him. Her uncle, C. Lalramhluna came to know of the incident and submitted the FIR. 23. PW-6 S.I. Liansangpuii also examined the accused, Lalroenga, and formally arrested him on 22.10.2022, at 10:00 PM and he admitted his guilt before her. 24. H. Zorami, the victim's grandmother was also examined by PW-6 and she narrated that on 14.09.2022 the mother of the victim girl went to Aizawl for medical check-up and while she was in Aizawl, they found that the victim ‘X’ was not in the house and they found her on 17.09.2022 morning sleeping with the accused inside their shop at New Champhai. She informed her son about this and when they questioned the victim she told them that she had sex with the accused since 2020 after they often chat on the mobile phone. They warned the accused not to see the victim again but on 20th and 21st October they again had sex in the residence of the accused which led them to file the FIR by her son, C.Lalramhluna, as the victim was a minor. The victim was sent for medical examination at District Hospital Champhai, wherein, the Medical Officer stated that the victim's hymen was not intact (old tear). She also seized the victim's original birth certificate, which showed her date of birth as 31.01.2009. She also sent the victim to the Special Judge, POCSO Act, to record a judicial statement. The judicial statement corroborated the statement the victim had made to her. She also sent the accused, Lalroenga, to District Hospital Champhai for medical examination to determine if he was medically fit for judicial custody and if he could perform sexual activity. The medical report revealed that he was fit for custody and his genital organ was normal. 25. The judicial statement corroborated the statement the victim had made to her. She also sent the accused, Lalroenga, to District Hospital Champhai for medical examination to determine if he was medically fit for judicial custody and if he could perform sexual activity. The medical report revealed that he was fit for custody and his genital organ was normal. 25. Based on the facts and circumstances, a prima facie case u/s 6 of the POCSO Act r/w 376 AB of the IPC was found well established against the accused, Lalroenga of Hmunhmeltha, Champhai as he had sexual intercourse with the victim more than once whenever he got the chance since 2020, while the victim was underage. She exhibited the following exhibits; Exbt P5 is copy of final report, Exbt P6 as arrest memo, Exhibit P7 is checklist, Exhibit P3 is seizure memo, Exhibit P8 is victim's statement u/s 164 Cr.PC, Exhibit P9 is requisition for medical examination of victim, Exhibit P10 is requisition for medical examination of the accused, Exhibit P11 is medical examination report of the accused, Exhibit P12 requisition for medical examination of the accused (fitness and covid-19), Exhibit P13 & 14 is medical report of the accused, Exhibit P15 is information Special Judge, POCSO Act, Exhibit P16 is prayer for Judicial Remand, Exhibit P17 is the Birth Certificate of the victim, Exhibit P18 is prayer for recording judicial statement of victim. 26. PW-6 in her cross examination admitted that no FIR was submitted on 17th or on the next day of October from any members of the victim's family. She admitted the suggestion that as can be seen from the statement of the victim, the victim went to the residence of the accused at Hmunhmeltha from New Champhai on the night of 20th and 21st October and she even left the residence of the accused on the morning of 21st October around 3 AM. That FIR was submitted only on 22nd October 2022. She admitted that the family of the victim submitted an FIR only after they found out that the victim still went to meet the accused at his residence and that there was no evidence from his investigation to prove that the accused lured out the victim from her residence in order to meet him at Hmunhmeltha. 27. She admitted that the family of the victim submitted an FIR only after they found out that the victim still went to meet the accused at his residence and that there was no evidence from his investigation to prove that the accused lured out the victim from her residence in order to meet him at Hmunhmeltha. 27. In the examination of the accused appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied having sexual intercourse with the victim and stated that he has been wrongly implicated in the case. 28. The judicial statement of the victim recorded on 25.10.2022 before the Judicial Magistrate, Champhai is to the effect that the she came to know the accused from August, 2020 as he helped his mother in running his business. The first time he slept with her was in the year 2020, in the month of November (she does not remember the date), her grandmother sent her out with Mapuia (accused) to search for money misplaced by her mother and the accused had sexual inter course with her for the first time on this occasion. Since the accused was having a relationship with her mother he started spending more time in their house and he started calling her out at night to have sexual intercourse with him. On 17th September 2022 as her mother was hospitalized, on the invitation of the accused (Mapuia), she spent the night with him in the shop and had sexual intercourse with him. The next morning, her grandmother came to the shop and found out what was going on. They scolded both of them and asked them to discontinue such behavior. They did not see each other or even talk to each other after that (be lo char char) till Mapuia(accused) contacted her on Friday night (21.10.2022) and asked her to meet him for the last time, so she secretly went to his residence at Hmunhmeltha at around 10 PM. The next morning, her grandmother and her family members got to know that she had gone out in the night which led to the filling of the FIR. 29. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the evidence on record. The next morning, her grandmother and her family members got to know that she had gone out in the night which led to the filling of the FIR. 29. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the evidence on record. It is seen that the learned trial court had convicted the accused appellant under section 6 of the POCSO Act based mainly on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. The Apex court in a number of cases has held that in rape cases, conviction can be made on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix, if the she is found to be a sterling witness and inspires the confidence of the court. 30. The Apex Court in Lok Mal v. State of U.P., (supra) held as under: “16. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the evidence of a prosecutrix in a case of rape is of the same value as that of an injured witness and conviction can be made on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 , the Supreme Court observed as under : “21. … The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.” 31. In Ganesan v. State (supra) the Apex court had referred to it’s decision in State of U.P. v. Pappu, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 594 , wherein it held as under: “10. In Ganesan v. State (supra) the Apex court had referred to it’s decision in State of U.P. v. Pappu, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 594 , wherein it held as under: “10. that even in a case where it is shown that the girl is a girl of easy virtue or a girl habituated to sexual intercourse, it may not be a ground to absolve the accused from the charge of rape. It has to be established that there was consent by her for that particular occasion. Absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a factor that leads the court to absolve the accused. This Court further held that there can be conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and in case, the court is not satisfied with the version of the prosecutrix, it can seek other evidence, direct or circumstantial, by which it may get assurance of her testimony. …………….. ‘12. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice, would do.’ ………………………… 14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.” 32. The Apex court in Rai Sandeep v . State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 at para 22, it is observed and held as under: “22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Apex court in Rai Sandeep v . State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 at para 22, it is observed and held as under: “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. 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. 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.” 33. The Apex court in Sham Singh v. State of Haryana , (supra) held that ; “6. We are conscious that the courts shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations or sexual assaults. ………. 8. It is also relevant to note the following observations of this Court in Raju v. State of M.P. [Raju v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 133 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 751] , which read thus: “10. ………. 8. It is also relevant to note the following observations of this Court in Raju v. State of M.P. [Raju v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 133 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 751] , which read thus: “10. The aforesaid judgments [State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 316] [Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam, (1998) 8 SCC 635 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1725] lay down the basic principle that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement has to be evaluated on a par with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid observations must carry the greatest weight and we respectfully agree with them, but at the same time they cannot be universally and mechanically applied to the facts of every case of sexual assault which comes before the court. 11. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration.” In the above cited case on analysis of the evidence adduced the Hon’ble Apex court held that the offence of rape does not stand proved. Accordingly, allowing the appeal and acquitted the appellant. 34. In the case of Amitava Banerjee @ Amit @ Bappa Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 554 , the Supreme Court has held that the statement of the witness under Section 164 Cr.PC. does not constitute substantive evidence. Accordingly, allowing the appeal and acquitted the appellant. 34. In the case of Amitava Banerjee @ Amit @ Bappa Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 554 , the Supreme Court has held that the statement of the witness under Section 164 Cr.PC. does not constitute substantive evidence. However, as a conviction can be based entirely on the statement of a rape victim, as has been settled by the Supreme Court in several decisions, the statement made by a prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.PC can also be used for convicting an appellant, if the same is consistent with the testimony given by the victim under oath during trial. The statement, recorded under Section 164 of the Code may also be used for corroboration not only contradiction, as held in the case of R. Shaji Vs. State of Kerala , reported in (2013) 14 SCC 266 . In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, the statement given under Section 164 of the Code may be used for the purpose of corroboration and contradiction. 35. In the backdrop of the above cited case, we find it appropriate to analyze and assess the evidence on record and examine the veracity of the testimony/ evidence of the prosecutrix and whether she can be termed as a sterling witnesses to justify the conviction of the accused appellant on the sole basis of the prosecution evidence. 36. A scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the prosecutrix show that there is a discrepancy in the place where the accused appellant is stated to have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix for the first time. The prosecutrix has testified in the court that the first time the accused slept with her was in the year 2020, she does not remember the exact time but it was somewhere in the month of September and that he took her inside YMA Hall, Venglai, where he had undressed her and himself and had forced himself upon her. In her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, she has not mentioned the place of occurrence, however, the case I.O PW-6 in her deposition had stated that the prosecutrix told her that towards the end of 2020, she went out with Lalroenga, and they had sexual intercourse for the first time near the Community Hall, Venglai, beside a motor vehicle. In her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, she has not mentioned the place of occurrence, however, the case I.O PW-6 in her deposition had stated that the prosecutrix told her that towards the end of 2020, she went out with Lalroenga, and they had sexual intercourse for the first time near the Community Hall, Venglai, beside a motor vehicle. Thus we find that even if YMA hall and the Community hall are the same hall, however, the place where the incident is stated to take place is still different i.e., ‘inside the hall’ and near the ‘hall beside a motor vehicle’. There is also discrepancy in the time when the incident happened, wherein, in the deposition of the prosecutrix in the court, she stated the time as ‘somewhere in the month of September’, while in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C she stated that they had sex for first time in the year 2020 in the month of ‘November’ (she does not remember the date). 37. We also find that the date when the accused appellant and the prosecutrix slept together in the shop at New Champhai, when her grandmother saw them sleeping together the next morning at 5 AM is not clear. The prosecutrix in her deposition had mentioned the date as on 17.10.2022 while her mother was hospitalised at Aizawl and in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C she had stated that it was on 17.09.2022 while her mother was hospitalised at Aizawl. The prosecutrix in her deposition had also mentioned the presence of her cousin U Mama who came to the shop with her grandmother on 17.10.2022 however, this ‘U Mama’ is not mentioned in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. 38. We have also noted that the prosecutrix in her statement under 164 Cr.P.C. had stated that after being warned on 17.09.2022, she neither saw nor spoke to the accused appellant after the incident in the vernacular language she had used the term ”char char” which indicates that there was a lapse of a certain period of time before she said she went to the house of the accused appellant on 21.10.2022, which had led to the filling of the FIR by the informant. However, when the court had asked the prosecutrix about the last incident that led to the FIR submitted by her uncle, the prosecutrix deposed the last incident as on 17.10.2022 night, when she spent the night inside their shop at New Champhai. It is also seen from the deposition of PW6 that the prosecutrix stated that the incident of sleeping with the accused appellant in the shop at New Champhai was on 17.10.2022 and after being scolded, she went to the house of the accused appellant at Hmunhmeltha on 21.10.2022, which would be only after a lapse of only 3(three) days and thus inconsistent with her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 39. For the reasons as highlighted above, we find that there are significant inconsistencies in the statement of the prosecutrix from the point when she made a statement before the case I.O, in her statement recorded under 164 Cr.P.C and in her deposition in the court. We are therefore, of the considered opinion that such discrepancies or inconsistencies, regarding the place and time of the incidents as discussed above cannot be termed as minor discrepancies. We thus find that the prosecutrix cannot be said to be a “sterling witness” as described by the Apex Court in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) , and find it difficult to accept the evidence of the prosecutrix from its face value without any hesitation and therefore, we find it appropriate to look into the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses for corroboration. 40. We find that in the deposition of PW1/informant, though he deposed 17.10.2022 as the date, when the accused appellant and the prosecutrix slept together in the shop, however, in his cross examination he had admitted that the incident happened on 17.09.2022. We find that the consistency in the date is important to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix that she had sexual intercourse with the accused appellant on 17.10.2022 and that her Grandmother and U Mama found them sleeping together in the shop the next morning. The key witnesses who can give clarity on the date of the incident is the Grandmother or ‘U Mama’ whom the prosecutrix mentioned in the deposition. However neither of them were cited or examined as prosecution witnesses. 41. The key witnesses who can give clarity on the date of the incident is the Grandmother or ‘U Mama’ whom the prosecutrix mentioned in the deposition. However neither of them were cited or examined as prosecution witnesses. 41. We also find that when PW1 since does not have clarity on the date of the incident and whether he was informed about the incident on 17.09.2022 or 17.10.2022, thus, the credibility of his deposition that the prosecutrix had gone to meet the accused appellant on 21.10.2022 which caused him to file the FIR on 22.10.2022 is also questionable, especially when the prosecutrix/PW2 had not mentioned this in her deposition. 42. PW3 is the seizure witness on the seizure of the birth certificate where her date of birth is recorded as on 31.01.2009. This fact has not been disputed. 43. Pw5 is the medical doctor who conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix and found her hymen was not intact (old tear). However we find that since it has come in evidence on the cross examination of the prosecutrix and PW1, that the prosecutrix had previously eloped with a Enkawla of Tlangsam, the medical evidence does not have much weightage in the instant case and is therefore not a corroborative evidence. PW-6 is the case I.O who had found prima facie case against the accused appellant based on the statements made before him by the prosecution witness. 44. In view of the above findings, we find that the evidence of the other prosecution witness cannot be used as corroborative evidence to support the case of the prosecution. 45. The Apex court in a number of its decisions and reiterated in Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra , reported in AIR 2021 SC 1249 held that it a settled proposition of law that the benefit of doubt always go to the accused when two views are possible. We find that in the present case for the reasons already discussed in the aforesaid paragraphs, the prosecution have not been able to establish their case against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt and we find it appropriate to give the accused appellant the benefit of doubt. We find that in the present case for the reasons already discussed in the aforesaid paragraphs, the prosecution have not been able to establish their case against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt and we find it appropriate to give the accused appellant the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, we acquit the appellant of the charge under section 6 of the POCSO Act by quashing and setting aside the Judgment & Order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Champhai in Criminal trial No. 37/2023 46. Accordingly, the appellant Laroenga, on acquittal, is to be released and set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in any other case. 47. Crl.A. No. 12 of 2024(J) stands allowed and disposed of. Original Trial Court records if any, should be sent back. 48. In appreciation of the services rendered by Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2, the State Legal Services Authority is to pay the learned Amicus Curiae his fees at the rate of Rs. 9,500/- and the learned Legal Aid counsel, the requisite fees as per existing rates.