J UDGMENT & O RDER : KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J. Heard Mr. Lalramdinthara, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/appellant. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2/informant. 2. This Criminal Appeal from Jail is presented against the Judgment & Order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Kolasib in SC No. 36/2022 in Crl. Trial Ex. No. 184/2022, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5000/, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. 3. The brief facts of the case is that PW-1 i.e., the stepmother of the victim lodged an FIR on 27.08.2022 alleging, inter alia, that her daughter i.e., the victim/PW-2, who is aged about 15 years was raped by the accused/appellant, who is aged about 57 years, many times from June, 2022 at his residence and also in a jhum hut. Accordingly, a case was registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 376 IPC. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer investigated the matter and after recording the statement of the victim and other witnesses and also the accused/appellant, submitted charge-sheet vide Charge-sheet No. 16/2022 dated 13.10.2022 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 376 IPC against the accused/appellant. Thereafter, the Trial Court framed charges against the accused/appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and upon the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty, the trial commenced. During trial, the prosecution examined 7 prosecution witnesses, including the victim. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein he generally denied all the incriminating circumstances. However, he adduced 4 witnesses as defence witnesses in order to prove his innocence. After closure of the evidence, the Trial Court, by judgment and order, rendered the impugned judgment, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted and sentenced thereof. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the present criminal appeal. 4. Mr. However, he adduced 4 witnesses as defence witnesses in order to prove his innocence. After closure of the evidence, the Trial Court, by judgment and order, rendered the impugned judgment, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted and sentenced thereof. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the present criminal appeal. 4. Mr. Lalramdinthara, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/appellant submits that though the incident is alleged to have occurred in the month of June, 2022, however, the FIR has been lodged only on 27.08.2022 i.e., almost two months later and there has been no explanation as regards the delay occurred in filing the FIR. In support of his submission that the aforesaid delay is fatal to the prosecution case, he relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manirul Islam @ Manirul Zaman Vs. State of Assam and Another in Criminal Appeal No. 64/2020 5. He further submits that the informant/PW-1 upon learing that her accusation against the accused/appellant is incorrect, she submitted a letter addressed to the Trial Court. He further submits that the accused/appellant, by adducing her as a defence witness No. 4 has proved the content of the aforesaid letter submitted before the Trial Court, and therefore, the Trial Court ought to have taken this aspect in mind and disbelieved the testimony of the victim. He accordingly submits that the Trial Court, having not considered the defence witness No. 4, has committed error of law and therefore, the impugned judgment and order warrants to be interfered with in this criminal appeal. 6. He further submits that it is apparent that the victim/PW-2 has been inconsistent as regards her allegation of sexual assault against the accused/appellant right from her statement made before the Investigating Officer till her deposition made before the Trial Court. In this regard, he further draws the attention of this Court as regards to the discrepancy of the place where the alleged incident occurred. Accordingly, he submits that the victim/PW-2 cannot be said to be trustworthy, credible and that of a sterling witness and hence, the impugned conviction based on such testimony of the victim/PW-2 is liable to be interfered with. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rai Sandeep Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 . 7. Mrs. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rai Sandeep Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 . 7. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent on the other hand vehemently opposing the argument made by the learned Amicus Curiae submits that it is apparent from the record that the victim/PW-2 has consistently maintained her version as regards the core spectrum of the alleged offence right from her statement given to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.PC till her deposition before the Trial Court. She further submits that there has been no delay in lodging the FIR as contended by the learned Amicus Curiae, inasmuch as, a plain reading of the FIR indicates that the informant has clearly stated that from June, 2022, many times the accused/appellant had raped the victim/PW-2. She further submits that the Exhibit-D (1) i.e., the letter dated 09.06.2023, which is exhibited by defence witness No. 4 cannot discredit the otherwise trustworthy, credible and reliable testimony of the victim/PW-2. 8. Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the informant/PW-1 submits that as regards the core spectrum of the crime as alleged in the case at hand, it is clearly established from the record that the victim/PW-2 has remained intact about the same, right from her initial statement given before the Investigating Officer till her deposition before the Trial Court. He further submits that the standard of proof as regards the defence taken by the accused/appellant is not the same as regards the prosecution, and it is the standard of preponderance of probability, with which the same is to be tested. He further submits that the sole testimony of the victim/PW-2 is sufficient enough to hold the conviction against the accused/appellant, inasmuch as, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, her testimony appears to be of trustworthy and credible. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Phool Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 2 SCC 74 . 9. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Phool Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 2 SCC 74 . 9. He further submits that it is clearly discernible from the evidence adduced before the Trial Court that at no relevant time, the defence has brought out any enmity or animosity on the part of the victim or her family towards the accused/appellant so as to suggest that the victim/PW-1 has wrongly implicated the accused/appellant in such a serious offence which tarnishes her entire life/character. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Budheswar Hazarika Vs. State of Assam Represented by the Public Prosecutor reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Gau 130. 10. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the contending parties and have perused the material available on record including the citations submitted at the bar. 11. The instant criminal appeal being against the conviction, apt to analysis and re-appreciate the evidence on record. It appears that the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant adduced 7 prosecution witnesses. 12. PW-1, who is the stepmother of the victim and the informant in the instant case, deposed that on 26.08.2022, she learned that the accused/appellant had, during in the month of June 2022, sexually assaulted and raped her minor daughter, i.e., the victim/PW-2, aged about 15 years, several times inside his house at Mualkhang Vengchhak and in the jhum hut of some person in the forest. She further deposed that accordingly, on the next date, she filed an FIR before the jurisdictional Police Station and exhibited the FIR as Ext P-1 and her signature as Ext. P-1(a). During cross-examination, she clarified that she does not know the exact date when the accused/appellant had raped the victim/PW-2. She further clarified that the accused/appellant had raped the victim/PW-2 in the jhum hut of Lalzara. She further clarified that she submitted the FIR on the basis of the information received from the victim/PW-2. She further clarified that as far as she could remember, the victim/PW-2 was not afraid of the accused/appellant but after she found that the alleged incidents, she was afraid of him. 13. She further clarified that she submitted the FIR on the basis of the information received from the victim/PW-2. She further clarified that as far as she could remember, the victim/PW-2 was not afraid of the accused/appellant but after she found that the alleged incidents, she was afraid of him. 13. At this juncture, PW-1 was further re-examined and on being re-examined, she deposed that the victim/PW-2 used to pee on the bed due to vaginal injury sustained by her. Upon re-cross-examination, she clarified that she did not personally check the victim/PW-2’s vagina at those time and after she submitted the FIR and the Doctor examined the victim/PW-2 medically, she came to know that there was infection on her vagina. 14. PW-2, who is the victim herself, deposed that she is 15 years old and during the month of June – July, 2022, while she was in her aunt’s house at Mualkhang, Venglai, the accused/appellant came inside the house and asked her to get betel nut from his house and as such, she went towards his house while he was following her silently and when she reached his house, the accused/appellant also came inside and locked the door. She further deposed that he thereafter pulled her inside the bedroom and forcefully laid her on the bed and thereafter removed her pant and panty and he also removed his pant and thereafter, he inserted his penis inside her vagina. She further deposed that he had sex with her against her will and after few minutes, he ejaculated outside her vagina. She further deposed that she told him that she will inform the matter to her parents, however, he threatened her with dire consequences. She further deposed that he also did the same offence against her on another occasion. She further deposed that after these incidents, she along with the accused/appellant went to collect firewood from the forest and in the jhum hut of Pu Zara, the accused/appellant had raped her. She further deposed that the accused/appellant had raped her in his own farm on another occasion. During cross-examination, she clarified that she was afraid of the accused/appellant, however, since the accused/appellant’s wife, who is her aunt’s best friend, always told her to follow him, she accompanied the accused/appellant when he asked her to accompany him to collect firewood and even in the jhum hut. During cross-examination, she clarified that she was afraid of the accused/appellant, however, since the accused/appellant’s wife, who is her aunt’s best friend, always told her to follow him, she accompanied the accused/appellant when he asked her to accompany him to collect firewood and even in the jhum hut. She further clarified that the accused/appellant had sexual intercourse with her about ten times. She denied the suggestion that she deposed falsely before this Court. 15. PW-3 and PW-4 are the seizure witnesses, who have witnessed the seizure of the Birth Certificate of the victim/PW-2. Pertinent that PW-4, who is the aunt of the victim/PW-2, during her cross-examination, clarified that she has no knowledge about the incident. 16. PW-5, who is the Doctor, who medically examined the victim/PW-2 deposed as under:- “I know the accused who is present in the court today. He is the person who was accused to have committed sexual offence in the instant case I had examined him along with the victim. On 27.08.2022 5:00 pm, Christy Malsawmzuali (15) D/O Lalromawia, who was alleged to be a victim of sexual assault, was brought at Kawnpui PHC for medical examination by one Constable Genevieve Lalrinawmi. Before conducting medical examination, I interrogated the victim and she stated that she had been sexually assaulted by the accused Lalhnuna several times. After obtaining consent I conducted medical examination upon the body of the victim and I found that her hymen was ruptured. I also gave the victim emergency contraceptive pill as her last sexual activity was on 24.08.2022. On the same day at around 5:45 pm, the accused Lalhnuna was also brought before me by constable Zothansanga for medical examination. He was alleged to have committed sexual offence against the victim. After obtaining consent I conducted medical examination upon him and I found that he was physically and mentally healthy and was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of examination. His genital organ was also normal. Ext P-V and Ext P-VII are the medical examination report and Ext P-V(a) and Ext P-VII(a) are my signatures.” During cross-examination, he clarified that on examination of the victim/PW-2’s body, he found no seminal stains or other stain on cloth and there were no marks of violence on her body. 17. PW-6 and PW-7 are the Investigating Officers of the case. 17. PW-6 and PW-7 are the Investigating Officers of the case. PW-6 is the first Investigating Officer, who deposed that he seized the Birth Certificate of the victim/PW-2 and exhibited the same before the Court. He further deposed that he had sent the victim/PW-2 and the accused/appellant for medical examination. 18. PW-7 deposed that after receiving the FIR on 27.08.2022, a case was registered and the same was duly investigated into. He further deposed that during the course of investigation, the previous Investigating Officer, i.e., PW-6 drew a rough sketch map of the place of occurrence, seized the Birth Certificate of the victim/PW-2 in presence of two reliable witnesses and recorded their statement. He further deposed that he arrested the accused/appellant and interrogated him. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of the victim/PW-2 as well as the other witnesses. He further deposed as under:- “During the course of investigation it is learnt that Lalbiaksangi is the step mother of victim Christy Malsawmzuali. I examined and recorded the statement of complainant Lalbiaksangi, aunt Lairintluangi, victim Christy Malsawmzuali and alleged accused Lalhnuna. As per victim statement, on the month of June 2022 she went to alleged accused Pu Hnuna's house to buy betel nut and Pu Hnuna pulled her in their bedroom laid down on the bed then he took off her clothes and suck her private part then inserting his penis inside her vagina. Again she was penetrative sexual assault under a banyan tree. On 24.8.22 Hnuna invited her to collect fire wood at the Jungle there she was raped by Hnuna. On 26.8.22 her step mother Lalbiaksangi and her aunt Lalrintluangi asked her to confess whatever done by Pu Hnuna on her, then she confessed all the things before them. On 27.8.22 she was brought at the PS and lodge FIR by her step mother. As per alleged accused Lalhnuna statement he stated that he sexually penetrative twice, once in his residence at Mualkhang Vengchhak and once at the jungle of Mualkhang Vengthar while they collecting fire wood. Copy of all their statements were enclosed herewith. During the course of investigation intimation regarding minor rape of Christy Malsawmzuali on written given to the Chairman Child Welfare Committee Kolasib District Kolasib vide this PS L/No D/162/KPI-PS/22 Dt.27.8.22. A copy of the same is enclosed herewith. Copy of all their statements were enclosed herewith. During the course of investigation intimation regarding minor rape of Christy Malsawmzuali on written given to the Chairman Child Welfare Committee Kolasib District Kolasib vide this PS L/No D/162/KPI-PS/22 Dt.27.8.22. A copy of the same is enclosed herewith. On 28.8.22 alleged accused Lalhnuna (57) s/o D.Lalauva (L) of Mualkhang Vengchhak was forwarded to the CJM(K) with a prayer for judicial remand/recording of confessional statement vide this PS L/No.D/164/KPI-PS/22 Dt.28.8.22 as well as a prayer also submit to CJM(K) with a prayer for recording judicial statement in respect of victim Christy Malsawmzuall vide this PS L/No.D/163/KPI-PS/22 Dt.28.8.22. Later received victim Christy Malsawmzuali statement from Lallawmkimi JMFC vide memo No.D/221/3/District Court (K) Dt.30.9.22. As per statement the alleged accused Lalhnuna several time penetrative sexual assault and raped her. Also received a copy of order passed by Cacy Malsawmtluangi Ralte (CJM) in connection with the above noted reference case vide memo No.225-3/CM(K) Dt.20.9.22 which was a confessional statement of alleged accused Lalhnuna (57) s/o D.Lalauva (L) of Mualkhang Vengchhak. As per statement he had refused to confess regarding the allegation made against him. A copy of both order were enclosed herewith. During the course of investigation it was proved from the victim judicial statement and medical examination report that victim Christy Malsawmzuali (15) was penetrative sexual assault and raped by alleged accused Lalhnuna (57) several times and her hymen was also raptured. From the above facts and circumstances a prima facie case u/s 6 of POCSO Act 2012 r/w 376 IPC was found well established against the alleged accused Lalhnuna (57) s/o D.Lalauva (L) of Mualkhang Vengchhak.” 19. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, all the incriminating circumstances were put before the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein he generally denied all the incriminating circumstances. However, in respond to the Question No. (ii), “What do you have to say regarding the allegation leveled against you?”, he answered that “I did not commit the alleged offence, I was wrongly accused due to money matters. I am innocent.” 20. In order to prove his defence, he adduced 4 defence witnesses and one document alleged to have been written by PW-1, i.e., the informant of the case, to the Trial Court. 21. I am innocent.” 20. In order to prove his defence, he adduced 4 defence witnesses and one document alleged to have been written by PW-1, i.e., the informant of the case, to the Trial Court. 21. DW-1 is the President, Village Council/Court and DW-2 is the President of the Mizo Hmeichhe Insuihkhawm Pawl, Mualkhang Branch, who deposed that they have witnessed the DW-4 writing the letter dated 23.02.2023 to the Trial Court, however, they are not aware of the contents of the same. 22. DW-3, who is a President of the Young Mizo Association also deposed that in the month of February, 2023, the informant/PW-1/DW-4 came to him and requested him to witness the letter she executed in connection with the instant case and accordingly, after reading over the said letter and informing the other members of the Young Mizo Association, he put his signature as one of the witnesses. During cross-examination, he clarified that when he had put his signature on the said letter that is exhibited as Ext. D-1, the other witnesses, i.e., DW-1 and DW-2 were not there and that they have already put their signature on it. 23. DW-4, who is the informant and PW-1 in the instant case, deposed that after she submitted the FIR and when the case was on trial, she found out that the allegation she made against the accused/appellant was not based on truth and realized that she made a mistake of lodging the FIR against the accused/appellant and accordingly, she and her husband, i.e., the father of the victim, decided to prepare a letter to be submitted before the Trial Court. She further deposed that however, before preparing the said letter, they informed the matter to the whole family and all the family members agreed to prepare a letter. She further deposed that thereafter, she alongwith her husband, prepared the letter before the representatives of the NGOs at Mualkhang and they stood as witnesses and thereafter, she submitted the said letter before the Trial Court. She accordingly exhibited the said letter as Ext. D-1 and exhibited her signature as Ext. D-1 (d). During cross-examination, she clarified that the victim/PW-2 is not her biological daughter and is the daughter of her husband with his previous wife. 24. She accordingly exhibited the said letter as Ext. D-1 and exhibited her signature as Ext. D-1 (d). During cross-examination, she clarified that the victim/PW-2 is not her biological daughter and is the daughter of her husband with his previous wife. 24. In a case of sexual assault on a minor girl, what is important to keep in mind is that a minor girl, that too of the age of 15 years at the time of occurrence, would not ordinarily lie about being sexually assaulted. Therefore, the version of the victim has to be considered with utmost care before discerning the same. In fact, if the version of the victim inspires confidence and appears to be trustworthy, credible, unblemished and of sterling quality, no further corroboration is required for convicting the accused. 25. In Ganesan Vs. State reported in (2020) 10 SCC 573 the Apex Court has observed and held that where the testimony of the victim is found reliable and trustworthy, reiterated conviction on the basis of her testimony is permissible. The Apex Court observed as under:- “10.1. Whether, in the case involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc., can there be conviction on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix, in Vijay, it is observed in paras 9 to 14 as under: "9. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain this Court held that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Court observed as under: (SCC p. 559, para 16) '16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.' 10. In State of U.P. v. Pappu this Court held 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. 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. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 597, para 12). '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.' 11. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, this Court held that in cases involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc. the court is duty-bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The Court further held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof. The Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 394-96 &403, paras 8 &21) '8. ... The Court further held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof. The Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 394-96 &403, paras 8 &21) '8. ... The court overlooked the situation in which a poor helpless minor girl had found herself in the company of three desperate young men who were threatening her and preventing her from raising any alarm. Again, if the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver or the car, how can that become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix? The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix. The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. ... Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. ... Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. 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 assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. 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 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 trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations." (emphasis in original) 12. In State of Orissa v. Thakara Besra, this Court held that rape not mere physical assault, rather it often distracts (sic destroys) the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, non-examination even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence. 13. In State of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh this Court held that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Wahid Khan v. State of M.P. placing reliance on an earlier judgment in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan. 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." 10.2. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, it is observed and held by this Court that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. 10.3. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, it is observed and held by this Court that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. 10.3. Who can be said to be a "sterling witness", has been dealt with and considered by this Court in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi). In para 22, it is observed and held as under: (SCC p. 29) "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." 26. In State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Pankaj Chaudhary reported in ( 2019) 11 SSC 575 , the Apex Court has held as under:- "29. It is now well-settled principle of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. [Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra]. It is well-settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that there is no rule of law or practice that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration and as such it has been laid down that corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the "probabilities factor" does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming." [State of Rajasthan v. N.?.]. 27. In Sham Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2018) 18 SCC 34 , the Apex Court has observed and held at paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 as under; "6. 27. In Sham Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2018) 18 SCC 34 , the Apex Court has observed and held at paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 as under; "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. [See State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh3 (SCC p. 403, para 21).] 7. It is also by now well settled that the courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. (See Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam4.)" 28. In Phool Singh (supra), relied by Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned Legal Aid Counsel, the Apex Court has held as under:- “ 8. In Ganesan², this Court has observed and held that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. In the aforesaid case, this Court had an occasion to consider the series of judgments of this Court on conviction on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix. In paras 10.1 to 10.3, it is observed and held as under: (Ganesan case, SCC pp. 578-82) "10.1. Whether, in the case involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc. can there be conviction on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix, in Vijay, it is observed in paras 9 to 14 as under: (SCC pp. 195-98) '9. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain this Court held that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Court observed as under: (SCC p. 559, para 16) "16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence." 10. In State of U.P. v. Pappu this Court held 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. 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. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 597, para 12) "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." 11. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, this Court held that in cases involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc. the court is duty-bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The Court further held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof. The Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 394-96 & 403, paras 8 & 21) "8. ... The Court further held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof. The Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 394-96 & 403, paras 8 & 21) "8. ... The court overlooked the situation in which a poor helpless minor girl had found herself in the company of three desperate young men who were threatening her and preventing her from raising any alarm. Again, if the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver or the car, how can that become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix? The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix. ... The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. ... Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. ... Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. 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 assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. 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 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 trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations." 12. In State of Orissa v. Thakara Besra, this Court held that rape is not mere physical assault, rather it often distracts (sic destroys) the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, non-examination even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence. 13. In State of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh, this Court held that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Wahid Khan v. State of M.P. placing reliance on an earlier judgment in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan . 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.' 10.2. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana it is observed and held by this Court that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. 10.3. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana it is observed and held by this Court that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. 10.3. Who can be said to be a "sterling witness", has been dealt with and considered by this Court in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi). In para 22, it is observed and held as under: (SCC p. 29) 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.'” 9. In Pankaj Chaudhary, it is observed and held that as a general rule, if credible, conviction of the accused can be based on sole testimony, without corroboration. It is further observed and held that sole testimony of the prosecutrix should not be doubted by the court merely on basis of assumptions and surmises. In para 29, it is observed and held as under: (SCC p. 587) "29. It is now well-settled principle of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. [Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra]. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that there is no rule of law or practice that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration and as such it has been laid down that corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the "probabilities factor" does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. [State of Rajasthan v. N.K.]." 29. [State of Rajasthan v. N.K.]." 29. In Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu (Supra), relied by the learned Amicus Curiae, the Apex Court clarified that in order for a witness to qualify as a sterling witness, the test to be applied is to see whether the version of such witness on the core spectrum of the crime remains intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects matches the said version in material particulars. Paragraph No. 22 reads as hereunder:- “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.” 30. Therefore, the test is to take the testimony of the victim in the context of the facts of each case and to ascertain whether her testimony can be said to be trustworthy, reliable, credible and is of sterling quality. In doing so, whether this surrounding circumstances deposed by her is supported by other witnesses or not and the manner in which she has recounted the incident right from the beginning to the end also amongst others to be taken into account. 31. It appears that the victim/PW-2 has categorically deposed before the Trial Court that during the month of June – July, 2022, while she was in her aunt’s house, the accused/appellant after calling her to his house by asking her to get betel nut made her come to his house and after she arrived, he closed the door and thereafter, pulled her to his bedroom where he forcefully had sexual intercourse with her. It further appears that she has also deposed that the accused/appellant thereafter, on number of occasions, including once when she had gone to collect firewood with him and in the jhum hut of one Pu Zara and in his own farm, also committed sexual intercourse forcefully with her. 32. It further appears that she has also deposed that the accused/appellant thereafter, on number of occasions, including once when she had gone to collect firewood with him and in the jhum hut of one Pu Zara and in his own farm, also committed sexual intercourse forcefully with her. 32. It further appears that PW-1, who is the stepmother of the victim/PW-2, has lodged the FIR, wherein she has clearly stated that the accused/appellant from June, 2022 has raped her daughter, i.e., the victim/PW-2 on several times. 33. In order to test the veracity of the testimony of the victim/PW-2, her initial statement made before the Investigating Officer during 161 Cr.PC and her statement made before the Judicial Magistrate during 164 Cr.PC examination is looked into. 34. Relevant portion of the victim/PW-2 statement made under Section 161 Cr.PC reads as under:- “On June 2022 when I went to Pu Hnuna?s place to buy betel nut, he dragged me to the bedroom, he took off my pants and also my underwear. He sucked my private part after which he inserted his private part into mine. After he assaulted me, he told me to put on my clothes. He said, “Go home and if you tell your mom or aunt, you will have very bad name, they will beat you severely.” due to which I said nothing. After this, we went to pluck some areca nut/betel nut at their plantation. He again touched (raped) me under a Banyan tree, he said that we will go again on another day to pluck betel nuts and then we went home. On 24.08.2022, he invited me to collect firewood, we went to his plantation and there he told me to undress, he raped me again, here he threatened me not to disclose anything or else he would slap me. On 26.08.2022, my mother and aunt told me to disclose everything and that they would stand in my defense. I disclose every action of Pu Hnuna at that time. Then on 27.08.2022 my mother took me to Kawnpui Police Station.” 35. Relevant portion of the statement given by the victim/PW-2 under Section 164 Cr.PC before the Judicial Magistrate reads as hereunder:- “During the month of June-July this year, I was staying at the home of my paternal aunt when Uncle Lalhnuna came. He asked me to take areca nut from their home and he followed me. Relevant portion of the statement given by the victim/PW-2 under Section 164 Cr.PC before the Judicial Magistrate reads as hereunder:- “During the month of June-July this year, I was staying at the home of my paternal aunt when Uncle Lalhnuna came. He asked me to take areca nut from their home and he followed me. There was no one in their home and he bolted the door inside and he pushed me to his bedroom. He lay on top of me and he took off my pant and underwear. He too took off his pant and I could see his private part. He then inserted his private part inside mine. He then thrust his pelvis on me for a long time and he however ejaculate outside my private part. I then told him that I will tell my parents what he did to me. He then said I will earn a bad name in the society and that my parents will beat me up and he will then kill me. I therefore did not have the guts to tell anyone. Post this, he again took me to his home to collect areca nut while I was at my aunt's residence and he again raped me in their bedroom like the last time against my will. Post this, he invited me to collect fire wood and I followed him. He took me to the jhoom hut of Mr. Zara and he locked the door. There was a bed inside this hut and he pushed me down on the bed. He pinned me on the bed and he took off my pant and he grabbed my breasts while putting his hands inside my top and he again raped me here. He again took me to his garden once and he pinned me on the ground and raped me again. He would often threaten me to go to the mount of the school however I would always refuse to go there.” 36. Reading of the aforesaid 2 statements, it further appears that she has clearly deposed before the Investigating Officer as well as the Judicial Magistrate that the accused/appellant in the month of June – July, 2022 has raped her in his house. Reading of the aforesaid 2 statements, it further appears that she has clearly deposed before the Investigating Officer as well as the Judicial Magistrate that the accused/appellant in the month of June – July, 2022 has raped her in his house. She has further elaborately described the aforesaid incident in a natural and realistic manner and the same remains intact right from her initial statement made before the Investigating Officer till her deposition made before the Trial Court. 37. It further appears that the evidence of the Medical Officer further corroborates the testimony of the victim/PW-2 as regards her allegation of sexual assault. Thus, keeping in mind that the core spectrum of the alleged offence is consistent and intact right from the initial statement made by the victim/PW-2 till her deposition before the Trial Court, coupled with the fact that the surrounding circumstances also stands corroborated, I am of the unhesitant view that the testimony of the victim/PW-2 is wholly trustworthy, credible, unblemished and of sterling quality. That being so, no further corroboration is required in order to sustain a conviction against the accused/appellant for the offence of penetrative sexual assault. 38. This takes me to the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae as regards the delay in lodging the FIR by PW-1. It appears that PW-1 in the FIR lodged has clearly stated that the accused/appellant raped the victim/PW-2 many times from June, 2022 in his residence as well as at the jhum hut and during her testimony before this Court, she has clearly stated that on 26.08.2022, she came to know that the victim/PW-2 was sexually assaulted and raped during the month of June, 2022 and on several times by the accused/appellant inside his house and at the jhum hut of some persons in the forest and accordingly, on the next date, she filed the FIR. That apart, it appears from the testimony of the victim/PW-2 herself that though the accused/appellant was repeatedly committing sexual assault from the month of June, 2022, however, since he had threatened her with dire consequences, she did not earlier tell anyone about the incident. 39. That apart, it appears from the testimony of the victim/PW-2 herself that though the accused/appellant was repeatedly committing sexual assault from the month of June, 2022, however, since he had threatened her with dire consequences, she did not earlier tell anyone about the incident. 39. The accused/appellant, who was about 57 years of age at the time of the incident and of the same neighborhood and also the husband of the friend of the aunt, in whose house the victim/PW-2 at that time was staying, as evident from her own testimony, there is nothing unusual for the victim/PW-2 not to have narrated the incident earlier out of fear. That apart, it is absolutely clear that PW-1 immediately after coming to know about the incident, lodged the FIR. Hence, the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae as regards the delay of lodging the instant FIR being fatal to the prosecution case cannot be accepted and the same is rejected. 40. This takes me to another aspect of the matter. It appears that the accused/appellant has adduced 4 defence witnesses including the informant/PW-1, who has submitted a letter which was exhibited as Ext. D-1 to show that she has learnt that the allegation she lodged against the accused/appellant is incorrect. 41. The standard of proof of defence is not the same as that of the standard of proof by prosecution in a criminal case. The accused/appellant is only required to probabilize his defence. 42. The said letter dated February, 2023, which is exhibited as Ext.D-1, reads as under:- “I, Lalbiaksangi came to learn of late that my accusation against Mr. Lalhnuna of raping my daughter Christy Malsawmzuali is incorrect. Mr. Lalhnuna is innocent of the accusations made against him and I therefore pray that your Hon'ble Court would withdraw the connected case registered against him. We sincerely apologize for troubling the police and many other persons in this regard. Sd/- (LALBIAKSANGI) We are a witness to this fact. Sd/- President Village Council Court Mualkhang Sd/- President Young Mizo Association Mualkhang Branch Sd/- President MHIP Mualkhang” 43. We sincerely apologize for troubling the police and many other persons in this regard. Sd/- (LALBIAKSANGI) We are a witness to this fact. Sd/- President Village Council Court Mualkhang Sd/- President Young Mizo Association Mualkhang Branch Sd/- President MHIP Mualkhang” 43. Reading of the aforesaid letter, it appears that PW-1 deposing as defence witness for the defence, exhibited the aforesaid letter as Ext.D-1, wherein she has written that she lately learnt that her acquisition against the accused/appellant of raping her daughter, i.e., the victim/PW-2 is incorrect and the accused/appellant is innocent and therefore, she prayed for withdrawal of the connected case registered against him. 44. It further appears that during her deposition as a defence witness, though she mentioned that her husband, i.e., the father of the victim and other family members have all supported her and that she alongwith her husband has written a letter, however, upon a careful perusal of the said letter, it appears that the said letter is signed by only her. Be that as it may, the letter is too vague and cannot be said to discredit the testimony of the victim/PW-2, who this Court has found to be fully trustworthy, credible, unblemished and of sterling quality. 45. Apt at this stage to refer to the judgment & order dated 12.12.2023, of the Trial Court. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment, reads as under:- “Exhibit D-I is copy of her letter and exhibit D-I(a) is her signature. Mr. Lalfakawma, aged 49, resident of Mualkhang Village as DW-1 deposed that he knew the accused, the complainant and the victim as well and they all belonged to the same village. He stated that in the month of February, 2023, the complainant in the present case requested him to witness a letter which she was about to submit it to the Court in connection with the present case. He added that the letter was read over to him and put his signature on the letter as a witness. On cross-examination, he stated that he did not see the letter prepared by the complainant and can't say whether the accused committed sexual offence on the victim or not. DW-2 namely Mrs. Lalremthangi deposed that she knew the accused, the complainant and the victim as well and they all belonged to the same village. On cross-examination, he stated that he did not see the letter prepared by the complainant and can't say whether the accused committed sexual offence on the victim or not. DW-2 namely Mrs. Lalremthangi deposed that she knew the accused, the complainant and the victim as well and they all belonged to the same village. She stated that in the month of February, 2023, the complainant in the present case requested her to witness a letter which she would submit to the Court in connection with the present case. She added that she read over the letter and after informing other OB members of MHIP, she put her signature on a letter as a witness. Exhibit D-I(b) is her signature. On cross- examination, she stated that she did not see the said letter prepared by the complainant and can't say whether the accused committed sexual offence on the victim or not. DW-3 namely Mr. R. Vanlalthlira deposed that he knew the accused, the complainant and the victim as well and they all belong to the same village. He stated that in the month of February, 2023, the complainant in the present case requested him to witness a letter which she would submit to the Court in connection with the present case. He added that the letter was read over to him and after informing other members of YMA, he put his signature on the letter as a witness. On cross-examination, he stated that he did not see the letter prepared by the complainant and can't say at what time it was prepared and executed and even didn't know whether the accused committed sexual offence on the victim or not. On careful perusal of the evidences put forth by all the defence witnesses except DW-4, it is noticed that they all deposed similar statements about the letter which was purportedly prepared by DW-4 (complainant/PW- 1 now turned to DW-4), but all did not see the said letter and even didn't know if the accused committed sexual offence on the victim or not. What the Court clearly noticed from their statements in the Court is nothing but a letter/certificate purportedly prepared by DW-4 which has no evidentiary value for the accused to prove his innocence. What the Court clearly noticed from their statements in the Court is nothing but a letter/certificate purportedly prepared by DW-4 which has no evidentiary value for the accused to prove his innocence. As the victim has clearly deposed about rape on her by the accused and since the same is strongly corroborated by medical evidence, the evidences put forth by defence witnesses have been manifestly outweighed beyond doubt by the prosecution evidences.” 46. Reading the aforesaid finding of the Trial Court, I am of the firm view that the Trial Court has not committed any legal infirmity or illegality and hence, no interference is called for. Resultantly, this criminal appeal fails. 47. This Court appreciates the service rendered by Mr. Lalramdinthara, learned Amicus Curiae and his fee is fixed at Rs. 7,500/- (rupees seven thousand five hundred) only, and the service rendered by Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned Legal Aid Counsel and his requisite fee is to be paid by the State Legal Services Authority as per existing rates. 48. Accordingly, the criminal appeal stands dismissed and is disposed of. Send back the Trial Court Record.