JUDGMENT : SHAMIMA JAHAN, J. This is a Criminal Appeal preferred against the Judgment convicting the appellant dated 28.02.2023 as well as the sentencing Order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the Special Court (POCSO Act), Siaha District, Mizoram by which the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act’) and was sentenced to undergo a Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 (ten) years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) and in default of the said fine, Simple Imprisonment for another period of 2 (two) months. FACTS 2. The prosecution case as is revealed from the First Information Report (FIR) dated 21.11.2018 is that the daughter of the informant being 16 years of age was raped by her teacher i.e. the appellant on 15.11.2018 at around 7:30 pm in a house below the house of the victim. The said FIR was lodged by the mother of the victim. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered the case as SHA-PS Case No. 95 of 2018 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and investigated the case. On completion of the investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet vide charge-sheet No. 101 of 2018 on 14.12.2018.Thereafter, on completion of the necessary requirements under the law, the learned Special Court (POCSO Act), Siaha District framed the charge against the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, on 18.03.2019. Thereafter the trial proceeded and the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.PC and the learned Trial Court after completion of the trial, convicted the appellant as mentioned above. It is this judgment and order passed by the Special Court (POCSO Act), Siaha which is put to challenge by the appellant before this Court. EVIDENCE 3. The Trial Court during the trial had examined seven prosecution witnesses and one defense witness to prove the case. PW-1 is the mother of the victim and the complainant and she stated that on 16.11.2018, her mother with whom the victim lived, called her up and informed her that some bad incident had happened and that the appellant had visited her asking for apology. This witness however, requested her mother not to take any actions till she reaches and that this witness proceeded to her mother’s house and after hearing the incident lodged the First Information Report (FIR). This witness however, requested her mother not to take any actions till she reaches and that this witness proceeded to her mother’s house and after hearing the incident lodged the First Information Report (FIR). This witness as such is a hearsay witness and whatever she stated was as informed to her both by her mother and her daughter. 4. The most clinching evidence in the instant case is the deposition of the victim who is examined as PW-2. She stated in no unclear terms before the Trial Court that she knows the appellant as he was the teacher in the school where she studied and that in the evening of 14.11.2018, the appellant told her that he would visit her place. She further stated that on the next day at around 5:30 p.m., the appellant visited her house and that he told her aunt that he likes the victim very much and asked her aunt to allow her to go with him to some other place to which her aunt agreed. She thereafter stated that she was taken by the appellant by a vehicle which was driven by one of his friends and took her to another place which she could not identify the same. She then stated that after moving here and there, the appellant asked her to help him to arrange his new rented house and that dropping her and the appellant in front of the said house, the driver of the said vehicle left the place. She then stated that they entered the said house and on being tired she sat on a long chair. At that juncture, the appellant jumped over her and took her down in the floor and raped her for around 2 minutes. She further stated that since she resisted him strongly, he could not continue and that she pushed him back. She also stated that while dressing up, the accused appellant wanted to rape her again but she requested him by crying that her whole life would be shattered if he commits the same. 5. She further stated that since she resisted him strongly, he could not continue and that she pushed him back. She also stated that while dressing up, the accused appellant wanted to rape her again but she requested him by crying that her whole life would be shattered if he commits the same. 5. It is also in the statement of the victim that at that point of time, one woman came to the place of occurrence and that the appellant told her not to shout and that he spoke with the said woman and after sometime the woman left and that thereafter too, the accused wanted to rape her again but she resisted. She also stated that the appellant told her that her examination results are in his hands and he can help her with that and that thereafter the appellant took her back to her house and that when she reached her house, she could make out that the rented place where the offence was committed was just below her house. She then stated that although the appellant threatened her not to disclose the fact to anyone but when she was found crying, her grandmother asked and she divulged the incident to her grandmother who in turn called up her mother and the subsequent ejahar was lodged. 6. The victim was cross-examined at length and she stated that the appellant came to her house to drink liquor and that her aunt permitted her to help the appellant in purchasing the said liquor and that she went out with the accused along with his friend for purchasing liquor. During the said cross-examination, she also stated that she had deposed in her judicial statement before the Magistrate that the appellant forcefully rubbed her breast and her thigh when they were inside the moving vehicle. She too stated that she had a chance to flee before entering the rented house but she did not flee away. 7. During the said cross-examination, she also stated that she had deposed in her judicial statement before the Magistrate that the appellant forcefully rubbed her breast and her thigh when they were inside the moving vehicle. She too stated that she had a chance to flee before entering the rented house but she did not flee away. 7. It is as such seen that there is discrepancy in the statement of the victim both in her examination-in-Chief and in her cross-examination in as much as in her examination in Chief, she said the appellant came to her house and she with the permission of her aunt went out to some other place with the appellant and in her cross-examination, she stated that the appellant came to her house to have alcohol and that her aunt asked her to help in purchasing the same. 8. The victim was examined by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.PC and the same was recorded on 21.11.2018 i.e. on the same day of lodging the FIR. She stated before the Magistrate that the appellant came to her house at around 5:00 pm and told her aunt that the victim was his favorite student and that he fancied her and also that he took permission from her aunt for taking her out for a short while and since the appellant was her teacher, her aunt respected him and allowed her to go with him. She thereafter stated that she went with the appellant in the vehicle and inside the vehicle, the appellant molested her sexually and took her to different places. She then stated that she felt unwell and that the appellant took her to a house and when she sat on a couch therein the appellant sprang over her and forcefully raped her and that she pushed him and told him that she would reveal the incident to her parents and if she is allowed to go she will not tell to anyone and as such, he stopped and then the appellant dropped her at her house. Further, on questions put by the learned Magistrate she said that the appellant had raped her for only 2 minutes and that she bled because of the incident. 9. Further, on questions put by the learned Magistrate she said that the appellant had raped her for only 2 minutes and that she bled because of the incident. 9. As it has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in cases under POCSO Act or under Section 376 Cr.PC or other sexual offence cases, the statement of the victim right from the inception i.e. before the Police Officer to the Trial Court has to be considered, the statement made by the victim before the police is narrated below. 10. Before the Police, the victim stated that the appellant came to her house at around 5:30 pm on 15.11.2018 and asked her aunt for permission to take her to some short distance and since the appellant was her teacher, her aunt agreed. She then stated that she went with the appellant in a vehicle driven by his friend and after travelling here and there, she was taken by the appellant to a house saying that he would take it on rent and that she may help him in inspecting the same and when she and the appellant entered the house, the appellant jumped on her when she was sitting on a couch and raped her against her will and consent. 11. It is as such noticed that during her first statement before the Police, she stated that the appellant took her on being allowed by her aunt to a house which he claimed to take it on rent and then upon reaching the house, he raped her. In her second statement before the Magistrate although she stated the same initial facts but she added that she was molested inside the vehicle and that by taking to a room, he raped her. She also stated that she told him that she would tell her parents if he does not let her go and that she will not, if he lets her go and that he stopped his actions and dropped the victim at her place. 12. The victim in her final statement before the Trial Court stated the same initial facts but she did not tell about the molestation part as she stated before the Magistrate. 12. The victim in her final statement before the Trial Court stated the same initial facts but she did not tell about the molestation part as she stated before the Magistrate. She stated that after driving from here and there, she was taken to the room and the appellant raped her while she was sitting on the couch and that the accused tried to commit the offence again and again. She also stated that the appellant would help her in her examinations which she did not state before the other authorities and that the appellant dropped her at her place and also that the appellant threatened not to disclose the incident to anyone. It seems there are discrepancies in the statements of the victim and in that case, it is a settled position of law that corroborations to the statement of victim should be sought for. 13. PW-3 is the aunt of the victim and she deposed before the Trial Court that the appellant came to her house at 5:30 pm as a guest and that the appellant asked her permission to take the victim out for purchasing something important and that she allowed the victim to go. She thereafter stated that the appellant and the victim did not return for long and as such, she and her mother went in search of them but could not find them and that by collecting the phone number of the appellant, the appellant was asked as to whether the victim was with him to which the appellant replied in affirmative and told that he had just dropped the victim at her place. PW-3 further stated that she requested the appellant to remain at home till they reach but the appellant left before she reached home. In her cross-examination, PW-3 had stated that the appellant had come to their house searching for liquor. She however denied that she had sent the victim to go with the accused in search of alcohol. She also stated that the appellant never showed any sexual advances towards the victim even when he was teasing her in the house. 14. PW-4 is the Doctor, who examined the victim and she upon examination found abrasion in the internal coitus and an old rupture of hymen. She also stated that the appellant never showed any sexual advances towards the victim even when he was teasing her in the house. 14. PW-4 is the Doctor, who examined the victim and she upon examination found abrasion in the internal coitus and an old rupture of hymen. In her course of duty, the Doctor asked the victim about the history of the offence to which the victim replied that she was taken by the accused on the pretext of cleaning the house and was sexually abused and was raped by the accused on the said day of occurrence. During her cross-examination, the Doctor, however, agreed to the suggestion that mild internal coitus could be self-inflicted due to mastication, which however could not be understood since the term mastication relates to chewing of food. 15. PW-5 and PW-6 are the seizure witnesses who have proved the seizure of the birth certificate of the victim. 16. PW-7 is the Investigating Officer of the instant case. He stated that on 21.11.2018, he received the FIR from the informant in which it was stated that her daughter was raped by her teacher and that he recorded the statements of all the witnesses, seized the Birth Certificate, sent the victim for medical examination as well as for recording her statement before the Judicial Officer and on completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet under Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the Appellant. In his cross-examination, he stated that there is delay in lodging of the FIR and that he did not record the statement of the driver of the vehicle on the ground that the driver being the friend of the appellant would not give statement in favour of the prosecution. Corroborations to the victim’s statement can only be seen to the extent of the appellant taking her on the said day of occurrence and the injuries found on the private parts of the victim. 17. These are the witnesses examined by the prosecution. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. During the said examination, only four questions were put to the appellant and they are as follows: “1. From the evidence, it appears that on 15.11.2018 you took out Sunday Lalchawimawii (16 yrs) D/o Rothlengliana and then raped her. What do you have to say in this regard? During the said examination, only four questions were put to the appellant and they are as follows: “1. From the evidence, it appears that on 15.11.2018 you took out Sunday Lalchawimawii (16 yrs) D/o Rothlengliana and then raped her. What do you have to say in this regard? Ans: In this regard I would like to mention in God's name that I did not rape her. 2. The evidence shows that you anyhow raped Sunday Lalchawimawii despite knowing that she is a minor. What do you want to say in this regard? Ans: There is nothing. Sunday, my friend and I went out in search of liquor. 3. Do you have anything to say before the Court? Ans: I was accused as Hmotha wanted to defame my name. I read my statement that was prepared by the Police and I told the case I.O that the contents written there are not true. I asked them to change it however it was refused. 4. Do you have any witness that you would like to call? Ans. Yes” 18. Thereafter, one defense witness was examined and she was the woman whom the victim stated to have visited the place of occurrence in her evidence. She stated before the Trial Court that in the evening of 15.11.2018, she saw the door of the flat opposite to her flat open and since she knew the flat was empty, she peered inside and shouted as to who was there and at this, the man replied that it was them. She then stated that she went inside and saw a man and a woman and asked them as to what they were doing and that the man replied that they were inspecting the house to take it on rent. This witness further stated that seeing the man and the woman, she assumed that they were a married couple who were looking for a house and after speaking to them for sometime, she left for her own house and while she was sitting in her living room, she heard the man and the woman closing the door and leaving. SUBMISSIONS 19. Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submits that the victim in the instant case cannot be termed as a sterling witness due to various contradictions in her statement before different authorities. SUBMISSIONS 19. Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submits that the victim in the instant case cannot be termed as a sterling witness due to various contradictions in her statement before different authorities. He submits that the statement of the victim before the Trial Court during her examination-in-chief was that the appellant came to her house at around 5.30 pm and asked her aunt to let her go with the appellant to visit some other place, whereas in her cross-examination, the victim stated that the appellant came to visit her house on that night to drink liquor and that her aunt asked her to help accused in purchasing liquor. He thereafter submitted that when the victim was taken to the Doctor for her examination, the victim stated before the Doctor that the appellant took her on the pretext of cleaning his house at his place and raped her. The Ld. Counsel further stated that during her examination by police under Section 161 Cr.PC, she stated that the appellant took her with the promise that they would go to a short distance and that before the Magistrate, the victim during her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC stated that inside the vehicle, the appellant sexually molested her and finally taking her to the house which he had decided to take it on rent, raped her. 20. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that there are many contradictions in the statement of the victim, and the victim as such, cannot be believed. He thereafter submitted that the woman who went to the place of occurrence was examined as DW-1 and she in her statement stated that when she went to the place of occurrence, she found both the appellant and the victim together, and she saw no abnormality amongst them. She in fact thought that both the appellant and the victim were a couple who had come to inspect the house. DW-1 also stated that the door was open and she went inside, spoke with the appellant for some time and left and thereafter, she found both the appellant and the victim leaving the said place. As such, the learned Amicus Curiae states that the victim could have hinted to the said woman that she was in problem but she did not and the woman did not find any abnormality at the place of occurrence. As such, the learned Amicus Curiae states that the victim could have hinted to the said woman that she was in problem but she did not and the woman did not find any abnormality at the place of occurrence. He thereafter submitted that the statement of the victim with regard to the said woman was different inasmuchas the victim stated that when the woman came, the appellant told the victim not to shout and that the woman came, spoke and left. The counsel as such stated that it was as if the victim was hiding at some place and the woman did not see her. This statement of DW-1, according to the learned Amicus Curiae was not unbelievable, who in fact stated that she met both the appellant and the victim. As such, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that the victim again could not stand on her legs as far as the consistency in her statement is concerned. 21. The learned Amicus Curiae also stated that the victim did not state about the said woman in her statements before the Magistrate during her examination under Section 164 Cr.PC as well as in her statement before the Police. He further stated that the victim did not shout although she had enough opportunity for the same. 22. The learned Amicus Curiae also stated that the examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.PC was not proper and that all the incriminating circumstances were not put to him. He also submitted that since the victim was not a sterling witness, her statement did not inspire confidence of the Court and further in absence of any corroborative evidence to the evidence of the victim, the conviction and sentence of the appellant may be interfered with and be set aside and quashed. 23. To substantiate his argument, he placed reliance on the following judgments:- 1) Phool Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 2 SCC 74 by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that although solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient to prove a case of sexual offence, however the same should inspire confidence and should be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. 2) A judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaikh Maqsood Vs. 2) A judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaikh Maqsood Vs. State of Maharashtra on 4th of May, 2009, in which the Apex Court held that while examining accused under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, the questions regarding the material substance should be separately put and that the questions should be fair and couched in a language that the accused person understands and can appreciate. 3) Nawabbuddin Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in ( 2022) 5 SCC 419 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that there is no reason to disbelieve the Doctor who examined the victim and who states about the statements made by the victim. These are the submissions made by the learned Amicus Curiae. 24. On the other hand, Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are minor contradictions in the statements of the victim, with regard to the offence in question, which does not go to the root of the case and as such cannot be fatal to the prosecution. She stated that statements of the victim in respect to the root of the case, i.e the appellant raping her inside the rented house, was intact before all the authorities and that she cannot be disbelieved. 25. She also stated that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the victim can be said to be a consenting party, however the same would not matter since the victim was minor. She thereafter stated that the statement of DW-1 may not be in the context of the present case, inasmuch as, the said witness stated that it was in the evening of 15-11-2018 as to when she found the appellant and the victim inside the house. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor stated that although the said witness had not stated about the time, but if it is considered as 5:30 PM, then it cannot be evening but night since it was in the month of November. 26. The learned Addl. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor stated that although the said witness had not stated about the time, but if it is considered as 5:30 PM, then it cannot be evening but night since it was in the month of November. 26. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor also stated that the said witness i.e. DW No. 1 deposed that she met a man and a woman inside the house, whereas the victim had clearly stated that she was threatened not to make any sound when the woman came are two different statements, and as such, it can be presumed that DW-1 had stated about some other event, which had taken place before the appellant and the victim reached the said house. She further stated that even presuming the victim was not a sterling witness, there are enough corroborations in the statement of the aunt and the medical evidence. 27. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor also stated that the appellant was also involved in other cases of sexual offences against other victims and as such, she submits that finding the victim an innocent simple girl, he took advantage and raped her on the pretext of taking her to inspect his house. She also submitted that although there is some delay in lodging the ejahar, the same will not be fatal in the instant case. 28. In order to substantiate her arguments, she placed reliance on the following judgments:- 1) Tulshidas Kanolkar Vs. State of Goa reported in (2003) 8 SCC 590 by which the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that delay in lodging the first information report, especially in cases of sexual offences, cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for discarding the prosecution case or doubting its authenticity. 2) Lok Mal @ Loku Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2025) 4 SCC 470 by which the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that the evidence of the prosecutrix in a case of rape is of the same value as that of an injured witness and conviction can be made on the sole basis of the same. 29. Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has distinguished the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Nawabbuddin Vs. 29. Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has distinguished the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Nawabbuddin Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Supra) in the context of the present case, on the ground that in the said case, the details of the entire incident was revealed by the victim to the doctor, whereas in the instant case, the victim had briefly stated about her case to the Doctor. In view of the said submissions, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has prayed before this Court that the Judgment and order of the learned Trial Court as well as the conviction and sentence of the appellant may be upheld. 30. Mr. Lalramdinthara, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 i.e. the informant has relied on the submissions made by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and has further submitted that the testimony of the victim is consistent before all the authorities as far as the root of the case is concerned. The victim, according to him has stated that she was taken to a house by the appellant and when she sat on the couch, the appellant jumped on her and raped her and the said statement was stated by the victim before the Police, before the Magistrate as well as before the Court. He as such submitted that the foundational facts were well established by the prosecution and that the reverse burden lies on the appellant to rebut the same. 31. The learned Legal Aid Counsel relied on Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which is reproduced here-in-below:- “ 29. Presumption as to certain offences .—Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved.” 32. The learned Legal Aid Counsel relied on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Guwahati in Lattu Das Vs. The learned Legal Aid Counsel relied on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Guwahati in Lattu Das Vs. State of Assam reported in 2021 (1) GLR 70 by which the Hon’ble High Court had observed that Section 29 of the POCSO Act creates a restriction on the accused’s right to remain silent and that once the foundational facts are proved, the burden shifts on the accused to rebut the presumption raised against him that he had committed the offence. 33. On the aforesaid facts and submissions of the learned counsels for all the parties, this Court is now called upon to adjudicate as to the legality of the Judgment and order passed by the Special Court (POCSO) as well as whether under the facts of the present case and by applying the laws there under, the conviction of the appellant can me maintained or not. ANALYSIS 34. It is a settled position of law that in a case involving sexual offence, the testimony of the prosecutrix can be solely relied upon, in case her testimony is consistent right from the beginning, i.e. her statement before the Police to her statement before the Trial Court and which inspires the confidence of the Court. As such, the reliance on sole testimony of the victim has two riders. They are 1) Her statement has to be consistent from the beginning till the end and 2)The statement should inspire the confidence of the Court. 35. In POCSO cases, the victim’s testimony is pivotal and the same can be treated as of a sterling nature unless there are compelling reasons to doubt its credibility. The statement of the prosecutrix is deemed vital only because of the fact that sexual offence occurs in private setting, leaving little room for any corroborative evidence. 36. The Apex Court has consistently held that victim’s testimony if found credible and reliable, is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused without requiring any further additional corroboration unless of course there are significant inconsistencies or reason for doubting the same. As such the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in many decisions as to when a victim of sexual offence can become a sterling witness and only on the statement of the said victim, conviction can be granted. 37. As such the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in many decisions as to when a victim of sexual offence can become a sterling witness and only on the statement of the said victim, conviction can be granted. 37. One of the leading case amongst others in respect of the said position of law is Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 and the observation made by the Apex Court therein are reproduced herein below:- “15. In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. 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 similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 38. It is apparent from the above decision that status of the witness is immaterial and what should be seen is that the truthfulness of the statement of the victim. It is also reflected that the statement of the victim has to be considered from the starting point till the end i.e. at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court and that it should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. 39. In the instant case, by applying the analogy provided for by the Apex Court, it is noticed that the victim in her initial statement before the Police stated that the appellant after taking permission from her aunt took her with the assurance of taking her to a short distance and when she went by boarding the vehicle of the appellant’s friend, she was taken here and there and that the appellant and the driver was smoking for which she felt sick and that thereafter, the appellant took her to a house that he said he will be taking on rent and requested her to inspect the same and that she went inside and when she sat on a couch, the appellant jumped on her and raped her. 40. 40. In her statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, she stated that the appellant came to her house and told her aunt that she was his favorite student and after taking permission from her aunt, to take her for a short while, they went out in his friend’s vehicle and that inside the vehicle the appellant molested her sexually and that although she told that her parents would be worried, she was taken to a different places and due to their smoking she felt sick and that she was taken to a rented house and when she entered and sat on a couch in the said house, the appellant sprang over her and raped her. 41. The victim further stated before the Magistrate that she pushed him away and cried and told him that she would tell her parents, if he forces on her and that she would not tell her parents, if he does not and that he stopped and he dropped her at her place. Further, on questions been put to her by the Court, she replied that the appellant did not rape her for a long time and it was only for 2 minutes and that it hurt her and she bled. 42. During the investigation, the victim was taken to the Doctor for examination and when she was asked about the incident, she stated before the Doctor that the appellant on the pretext of cleaning his house took her to his place and raped her. 43. Thereafter the victim stated before the Trial Court that the appellant came to her house at 5:30 pm and requested her aunt to allow him to take her to some other place to which her aunt agreed and that she was taken in the vehicle of the appellant’s friend and the appellant after taking her here and there, took her to a new house and on entering the said house where she sat on a chair, the appellant jumped on her, took her down in the floor and raped her. She thereafter stated that the appellant wanted to rape her again and again but she requested him by crying that it would spoil her future and that he should stop. 44. She thereafter stated that the appellant wanted to rape her again and again but she requested him by crying that it would spoil her future and that he should stop. 44. The victim spoke about the woman who came to the said house but she said the appellant threatened her not to shout which implies that she was hiding when the woman entered the house. She also stated that when she resisted the act of the appellant, the appellant told her that he has authority on her examination result, which again implies a kind of a threatening given by the appellant. She further stated that on her repeated request and on her agreeing not to divulge the incident to her parents, the appellant took her and dropped her back at her house. 45. In her cross examination, the victim however stated that the appellant came to her house on the night of the incident to drink liquor and that her aunt asked her to help the appellant for purchasing liquor and that she went out with the appellant in the vehicle of the appellant’s friend. She also stated in her cross examination about molestation inside the vehicle in the following terms “It is also a fact that my judicial statement recorded that accused forcefully rubbed my breast and my thigh even inside the moving car”. 46. It is not clear from the said statement as to whether she meant that she stated, she was molested inside the car during the said statement before the Magistrate or that it was simply written in the judicial statement about the molestation. Be that as it may, the said molestation incident was not stated by the victim in any of her statement barring the statement before the Magistrate as well as in her cross examination before the Trial Court which again is not clear. 47. As such, it is seen that there are contradictions in the statement of the victim before all the authorities. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. 47. As such, it is seen that there are contradictions in the statement of the victim before all the authorities. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (Supra) had further observed that the victim should be in a position to withstand the cross examination of any length and however strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of occurrence, the person involved as well as the sequence of it and the said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. 48. It is noticed that as far as the factum of the occurrence is concerned, the same appears to be consistent inasmuch as the victim stated before all the authorities that when she and the appellant entered the house and when she sat on the couch, the appellant jumped over her and raped her. However, there is one addition to the said fact in her examination-in-chief before the Trial Court where she stated that after jumping over her, the appellant took her down in the floor which again is absent in her statement before other authorities. As far as the person involved, there is no doubt that it was the appellant in the fact of the case and as far as the sequence of the occurrence is concerned, there appears contradictions in the statement of the victim and they are:- 1) First sequence - In her statement before the Police, she stated that appellant told her that he knows her father and that in her statement before the Magistrate she stated that on the day of occurrence when she was leaving her school, the appellant told her that he would come to her house at night and requested her to tell her father about it and that she told her father but her father was busy with her friend and he went out. Further, she stated before the Trial Court that the appellant told her that he would visit her house and to tell her father about the same. Further, she stated before the Trial Court that the appellant told her that he would visit her house and to tell her father about the same. 2) Second sequence - In her statement before the Police, she stated that appellant asked her as to why she was angry and that she should smile always as she is pretty but she did not say anything of this before the Magistrate as well as before the Trial Court. 3) Third sequence - In her statement before the Police, she stated that the appellant asked her aunt to give permission to go with him a short distance and in her statement before the Magistrate, she stated that the appellant told her aunt that she was his favorite student and that he fancied her and requested her to allow her to go with him for a short while and in her statement before the Trial Court, she stated that appellant told her aunt that he likes her the most and asked her aunt to allow her to visit some other place. 4) Fourth sequence - In her statement before the Police, she stated that the appellant took her to a rented house and told her to help him in inspecting the said house and in her statement before the Magistrate, the victim said that when she went with the appellant in the vehicle of his friend, she was molested inside the vehicle and that she got extremely scared and she told him that her parents would be worried about her but yet the appellant took her to different places and finally took her to his rented house and raped her and in her statement before the Trial Court, she stated that the appellant took her in the vehicle to a house and asked her to help him arrange his new rented house. 5) Fifth sequence - In her statement before the Police, the victim did not state any fact after the incident whereas in her statement before the Magistrate, she stated that after she was raped she told him that she will inform her parents if she forces her and that he threatened her that he would let her go only if she promises not to divulge the incident to anyone. However in her statement before the Trial Court, she stated that after sexually abusing her for the first 2 minutes the appellant again and again wanted to rape her but she resisted saying that her future would be destroyed and she also stated that when she resisted, the appellant said that he would be helping her with her examination results and when she agreed that she would not divulge the incident to anyone, the appellant let her go. 49. A bare perusal of the aforesaid inconsistencies shows that the sequences of the events were not stated properly and were not consistent with each other. The further requirement that the victim’s version should match with the version of other witnesses, it is stated that the statement of DW-1 did not match with the statement of the victim. DW-1 stated that she met both the appellant and the victim together inside the house and that she spoke with the appellant for some time and she also heard the appellant and the victim leaving the house whereas the victim stated that the woman had come to the house but the appellant threatened her not to make any sound implying thereby that she was hiding. Further, the submission of the Ld. APP that the incident which DW No. 1 spoke of, might be different, cannot be accepted since the occurrence took place in the evening of 15.11.2018 and the timing stated by different witnesses may differ which is very natural. It will not be out of context to mention herein that it is a settled position of law that defence witnesses are not to be treated as inferior and their evidence must be judged on the same parameters of reliability, corroboration and consistency as applied to prosecution witness. Such observation made by the Apex Court in Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of UP reported in (1981) 2 SCC 166 is reproduced below: “19. …………..We do not want to attribute motives to them merely because they were examined by the defence. Defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution. And, Courts ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses. Quite often, they tell lies but so do the prosecution witnesses.” 50. …………..We do not want to attribute motives to them merely because they were examined by the defence. Defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution. And, Courts ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses. Quite often, they tell lies but so do the prosecution witnesses.” 50. Further, in the statement of PW-3 i.e. the aunt of the victim, it is revealed that the accused had come to the house of the victim and asked her to allow the victim to go with him to buy something important which again is not in consistent with the statement of the victim. The statement of the Doctor who stated about what the victim stated to her was also not consistent with the victim’s statement. 51. The further observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court is that, only if the version of such a victim qualifies the test of reliability, it can be held that such a witness is a sterling witness whose statement can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. It is noticed that in the facts of the present case, the victim cannot, in the opinion of this Court, be termed as a sterling witness whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration. It is further held by the Apex Court that not only the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact in all her statement before the authorities but also the other attendant materials mainly oral, documentary and material objects should also match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court to rely on the core version as well as the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty. 52. Since it is in the opinion of the Court that the victim was not totally consistent with her statement before all the authorities, it is now the duty of the Court to look for corroboration in the instant case. It is in the evidence of PW-1 i.e. the mother of the victim who stayed elsewhere, that she was simply informed by her sister i.e. the aunt of the victim that a bad incident had taken place and that after coming to the victim’s house, she was apprised of the incident by both the aunt and the victim and she went and lodged the ejahar. She simply was a hearsay witness in the instant case. 53. PW-3 is the aunt who corroborates only to the fact that the appellant had taken the victim at around 5:30 pm on the day of occurrence with the request to purchase something. This witness during her search for the victim at different places, came to know that the victim was with the appellant and that the appellant had dropped her at her house and that she spoke to the appellant as well. Further, the Doctor who had examined the victim on 20.11.2018 i.e. after 5 days of the incident, found mild contusion on the right breast, abrasion in internal coitus as well as an old rupture of hymen with the further opinion in her cross examination that mild internal coitus could be self-inflicted. 54. It was further seen that date and time of examination by the doctor was on 20.11.2018 whereas the FIR was lodged on 21.11.2018 and it is in the evidence of the Police Officer, examined as PW-7 that after the registration of the FIR, he had sent the victim to medical practitioner for examination. It is as such seen that the medical examination was done before the registration of the FIR, which again has the effect of doubting the prosecution case. As such from the statement made above, it is noticed that barring the victim going with the accused on the day of occurrence at 5:30 pm and injuries on the private parts of the victim which again is doubtful due to the timing of the medical examination as stated above, no other corroboration is noticed. 55. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in yet another decision of Nirmal Premkumar & Another Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police reported in (2024) 3 SCALE 632 has held further in the following terms:- “15. What flows from the aforesaid decisions is that in cases where witnesses neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the Court should strive to find the true genesis of the incident. The Court can rely on the victim as sterling witness without further corroboration but the quality and credibility must be exceptionally high. The statement of the prosecutrix ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end (minor inconsistencies excepted), from the initial statement to the oral testimony, without creating any doubt qua the prosecution case. The Court can rely on the victim as sterling witness without further corroboration but the quality and credibility must be exceptionally high. The statement of the prosecutrix ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end (minor inconsistencies excepted), from the initial statement to the oral testimony, without creating any doubt qua the prosecution case. While a victim's testimony is usually enough for sexual offence cases, an unreliable or insufficient account from the prosecutrix, marked by identified flaws and gaps, could make it difficult for a conviction to be recorded.” 56. It is therefore apparent from the aforesaid judgment that the quality and credibility of the victim’s statement must be exceptionally high to rely upon the same and inflict conviction. In the instant case, it is seen that the statement of the prosecutrix does not reach to that extent. Since there are many discrepancies in the sequence of the incident as narrated by the victim, although, the core spectrum of the incident is consistent, the same cannot be relied upon. 57. A further issue that needs consideration of this Court is that the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. It is noticed that during the examination only four questions were put to the appellant as has been quoted above. He was only asked about the fact that whether he took the appellant on the night of occurrence and raped her, knowing she was a minor and nothing beyond the said two circumstances. He was then asked as to whether he had anything more to say and whether he will adduce evidence. It is noticed that number of incriminating circumstances were present in the evidence of all the witnesses but none of those were put to the appellant. 58. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nar Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 1 SCC 496 had observed and held that all relevant questions i.e. incriminating circumstances has to be put to the accused by the Trial Court under Section 313 of the Cr.PC and that only if no prejudice is shown to have caused to the accused person for non-questioning the accused of all the incriminating circumstances, the same may not be fatal in a case. It was also stated that even when the appellant had not shown the prejudice caused but where prejudice is implicit, non-questioning of all the incriminating circumstances would be fatal and the same would require remanding of the case. 59. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:- “27. The point then arising for our consideration is, if all relevant questions were not put to accused by the trial court as mandated Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and where the accused has also shown that prejudice has been caused to him or where prejudice is implicit, whether the appellate court is having the power to remand the case for re-decision from the stage of recording of statement Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure Section 386 Code of Criminal Procedure deals with power of the appellate court. As per Sub-clause (b)(i) of Section 386 Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellate court is having power to order retrial of the case by a court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such appellate court. Hence, if all the relevant questions were not put to accused by the trial court and when the accused has shown that prejudice was caused to him, the appellate court is having power to remand the case to examine the accused again Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and may direct remanding the case again for re-trial of the case from that stage of recording of statement Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and the same cannot be said to be amounting to filling up lacuna in the prosecution case.” 60. On the issue of non-compliance of the requirements under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor had submitted that retrial of the case at this stage would again lead to unpleasant circumstances as far as the victim is concerned. The incident had occurred in the year 2018 and that now 7 years had gone by and by this time the status of the victim must have undergone many changes. Further, since this is not a case where conviction of the appellant can be upheld, the issue of prejudice being caused to the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, may not require the consideration of this Court. CONCLUSION 61. Further, since this is not a case where conviction of the appellant can be upheld, the issue of prejudice being caused to the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, may not require the consideration of this Court. CONCLUSION 61. It is as such concluded that the statements of the victim which were seen to be inconsistent except the core status, the same cannot be believed as it did not inspire the confidence of the Court. 62. In view of the above discussion, the impugned Judgment dated 28.02.2023 and sentencing Order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the learned Special Court (POCSO Act), Siaha District, Mizoram convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and imposing the punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with a fine and default stipulation, is hereby set aside and quashed. 63. The appeal is allowed. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be in custody in connection with any other case. 64. In appreciation to the services rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei for the appellant, his fee of Rs. 7500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) may be given to him by the Mizoram State Legal Services Authority and the learned Legal Aid Counsel, Mr. Lalramdinthara, who appeared for respondent No. 2, may also be given his fee by the State Legal Services Authority as per the existing rates. 65. Accordingly, the criminal appeal stands disposed of. 66. Send back the Trial Court Record.