JUDGMENT : YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J. This is a criminal appeal from Jail under Section 383 Cr.PC against the judgment and order dated 08.02.2024 and sentence order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl in S.C.No.78/2020 in criminal Trial No.1239/2020 arising out of All Women Police Station Case No. 27/2020 under section 376(3) IPC R/W section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 2. By the impugned order and judgment dated 08.02.2024 and sentence order dated 22.02.2024, the accused/appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, with a default clause to undergo another 6(six) months simple imprisonment. 3. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged before the Officer-in- Charge All Women Police Station Aizawl district on 03.09.2020 by one Ramthanliani/informant/PW-1. In the FIR it was stated that the daughter of the informant aged about 15 years was raped by her father/accused at his residence in Ratu village during July 2019. It was stated that the accused/appellant raped the victim on numerous occasions even after that and the last incident took place on 03.07.2020. The informant also stated that the FIR was submitted late as her daughter/victim revealed the incident only on 31.08.2020. On receipt of the FIR, a case was registered being All Women P.S. Case No.27/2020 under section 376(3) IPC R/W section 6 POCSO Act,2012. 4. During the course of investigation, the complainant along with other witnesses and the victim were examined by the investigating agency. The statement of the victim under section 164 Cr.PC was also recorded and the I.O of the case/PW-10 submitted a charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.PC vide charge-sheet No.35/2020 dated 29.10.2020 having found a prima facie case for the offence under section 376(3) IPC R/W section 6 POCSO Act,2012 against the appellant/accused. 5. The appellant/accused was produced before the learned Special Judge POCSO on 07.12.2020. The Court also appointed State defense counsel to conduct the case for the accused/appellant as he expressed his inability to engage a counsel to defend his case. 5. The appellant/accused was produced before the learned Special Judge POCSO on 07.12.2020. The Court also appointed State defense counsel to conduct the case for the accused/appellant as he expressed his inability to engage a counsel to defend his case. On 07.12.2020 upon hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned State Defense counsel and upon perusal of the materials on record, the learned Trial Court proceeded to frame the charge under section 376(3) IPC R/W section 6 of the POCSO Act against the accused/appellant. 6. After framing the charge, the charge was read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents. 7. After closure of evidence from the prosecution side, the appellant/accused was examined under section 313 Cr.PC. The plea of the appellant in reply to the questions put to him under section 313 Cr.PC was of denial. During the section 313 Cr.PC examination, the accused stated that the case was filed because his ex-wife was angry with him. The accused appellant also examined himself as DW-1. In his examination-in-chief the appellant accused stated that in 2015 he was arrested by the Police because his wife had alleged that he tried to get sexual gratification from his daughter. The matter was taken up in the Police station and after 3 days of deliberations it was determined that he was innocent of the allegation. As he could not continue to live together as husband and wife after the allegations, he divorced his wife and she came to live in Aizawl whereas he continued to live by himself at Ratu village. In 2020 she again brought up the same issue and submitted a report against him to the Police, but there was nothing substantial between him and his daughter. On being cross- examined, the appellant accused stated that he was accused by his ex-wife of sexual assault against his daughter in 2015. He is separated from his ex-wife in 2015 because of the allegation. All his children live with his ex-wife after that. He denied that he had asked the victim to come and stay with him in Ratu but stated that she stayed with him for three months and went to school in Ratu. He is separated from his ex-wife in 2015 because of the allegation. All his children live with his ex-wife after that. He denied that he had asked the victim to come and stay with him in Ratu but stated that she stayed with him for three months and went to school in Ratu. He also denied that the victim stayed with him for 3 month in 2020 and denied that he raped her during this period. He also denied that he used to ask the victim to sleep naked and told her not to tell anybody about the sexual acts he committed with her. He further denied that he asked the victim not to visit his ex-wife’s relatives in Ratu. 8. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, Ms. Valentina Laldinpuii. Also heard learned P.P. Ms Linda Fawmbal for the State of Mizoram and Mr Lalrokunga Pautu, learned legal aid counsel for the informant. 9. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant submits that there is delay in filing the FIR as PW-4 deposed that the victim told her about the incident on 31.08.2020, however, the FIR was lodged only on 03.09.2020. The delay has not been explained anywhere and this contributes to the lack of credibility regarding the complaint as it appears to be an afterthought. There is also inconsistency in the statements of the victim inasmuch as before the Police she stated that during the month of July 2019 her father spoke to her through mobile and asked her to live and study with him at Ratu village. In her section 164 Cr.PC statement she stated that her father called her over the phone during the early part of June. Further, in her deposition before the Court the victim deposed that she had been to Ratu in the beginning of 2020, stayed in Ratu for about 3 months and returned to Aizawl in July. Therefore, the victim has not given any clear and consistent statement regarding the period of her stay in Ratu with her father/appellant. Moreover, if we go by the statement of the victim that she returned to Aizawl in July, the same is contradictory with the statement made in the FIR that the last incident took place on 03.07.2020. At the same time, the PW-4 also stated that the victim girl came back to Aizawl on 03.07.2020. Moreover, if we go by the statement of the victim that she returned to Aizawl in July, the same is contradictory with the statement made in the FIR that the last incident took place on 03.07.2020. At the same time, the PW-4 also stated that the victim girl came back to Aizawl on 03.07.2020. It is therefore not believable that the last incident could have taken place on 03.07.2020 as stated in the FIR. 10. The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that in the 164 Cr.PC statement of the victim she has only related about one incident at night when the accused/appellant came to her bed and touched her and forcefully had sexual intercourse with her. She also stated that after he raped her, he threatened her by saying “you will suffer if you tell another soul”. However, in her deposition before the Court or before the police, the victim/PW-2 has not stated anything about these threatening words but rather she had deposed that her father raped her number of times and she lost count of how many time he actually did it. 11. Learned Amicus Curiae relying on the case of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu vs State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 submits that the victim in the present case cannot be held to be a “sterling witness” as the Supreme Court in the cited judgment has held that 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 at face value without any hesitation. 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. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness”. Learned Amicus Curiae therefore submits that the statement of the victim herein has not been consistent throughout the trial and therefore she is not a “sterling witness”. 12. Learned Amicus has also relied on the medical examination of the appellant/accused as well as the victim. Referring to exhibit P/3 and Exhibit P/4, learned Amicus submits that no external injuries were found on the victim or on the appellant. 12. Learned Amicus has also relied on the medical examination of the appellant/accused as well as the victim. Referring to exhibit P/3 and Exhibit P/4, learned Amicus submits that no external injuries were found on the victim or on the appellant. Learned Amicus has relied on the case State vs Vipin alias Lalla reported in 2025 SCC online SC 78, wherein the Supreme Court held that no injuries were detected on the body of the prosecutrix, though the victim stated that she had hit the accused on the head and also on his foot, however when the accused had surrendered on 10.10.2014, none of these injuries were noticed on the body of accused. The Supreme Court therefore held that the testimony of the prosecutrix did not inspire evidence, and therefore, the acquittal of the accused person was upheld. Similarly, learned Amicus submits that the fact that there were no injuries either on the accused/appellant or on the victim points towards the weakness in the prosecution case. 13. Learned Amicus Curiae further submits that the PW-4 deposed before the Court that she suspected that the victim must be having a miscarriage as she was bleeding from her private parts. However, learned Amicus Curiae submits that there is no medical evidence adduced to prove this particular statement as the medical reports nowhere make a mention that the victim had a miscarriage. 14. The learned Amicus Curiae has also relied on the case of Abul Hussain Laskar vs State of Assam reported in 2017 SCC online GAU 578, to support her contention regarding the delay in filing the FIR. In the aforementioned case, a coordinate bench of this Court held that the prosecution could not explain the delay in filing the FIR. The incident had taken place on 12.09.2013 and the complaint was filed on 16.09.2013 with no explanation. The Court held that “this unexplained delay coupled with the medical opinion that there was no injury on the private parts of the victim are enough to raise serious doubt upon the authenticity of the allegation on the part of the prosecutrix”. Learned Amicus also relies on the case of State of Karnataka vs Mapilla P.P. Soopi reported ( 2003) 8 SCC 202 , wherein it was held that a undue delay in lodging complaint without acceptable evidence has also contributed to the doubt in the prosecution case. 15. Learned Amicus also relies on the case of State of Karnataka vs Mapilla P.P. Soopi reported ( 2003) 8 SCC 202 , wherein it was held that a undue delay in lodging complaint without acceptable evidence has also contributed to the doubt in the prosecution case. 15. In view of the above submissions, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that this is a fit case for this Court to interfere the impugned judgment and order dated 08.02.2024 and prays that the said judgment and order as well as the sentence order dated 22.02.2024 may be quashed and set aside. 15. The learned Public Prosecutor Ms. Linda Fawmbal on the other hand has submitted that the delay of 3 days in filing the FIR can be condoned by this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned P.P. has relied on the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs Sanjay Kumar @ Sunny reported in (2017) 2 SCC 51 . In the cited judgment, the Supreme Court held that delay of 3 days in lodging the FIR by the mother of the victim after eliciting the information from her daughter is inconsequential in the facts of the present case. The Supreme Court held that, “it is not to be forgotten that the person accused by the prosecutrix was none other than her uncle. It is not easy to lodge a complaint of such nature exposing the prosecutrix to the risk of social stigma which unfortunately still prevails in Indian society. The decision to lodge an FIR becomes more difficult and hard when the accused happens to be a family member. In fact incestuous abuse is still considered as a taboo to be discussed in public. This reticence hurts the victims or other family members who struggle to report”. Learned P.P. therefore submits that in the present case, the appellant accused is the biological father of the victim and it would be even more difficult for the family to arrive at a decision to lodge the FIR against the accused/appellant. 16. Learned P.P. has also submitted that the confusion regarding the dates or month of the incident is immaterial as the depositions of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, and PW-7 has proved that the victim was a child within the meaning of section 2(d) of the POCSO Act,2012. 16. Learned P.P. has also submitted that the confusion regarding the dates or month of the incident is immaterial as the depositions of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, and PW-7 has proved that the victim was a child within the meaning of section 2(d) of the POCSO Act,2012. The depositions of these PWs have also proved that the victim stayed with the father in the year 2020. There may be some minor inconsistencies but the fact that the appellant/accused committed sexual abuse on the victim has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The victim/PW-2 in her section 164 Cr.PC statement as well as in her deposition before the court has clearly stated that the sexual assault by her father started from the second night after she went to Ratu to stay with her father. She deposed that her father raped her number of times and she lost count of how many times he had actually done it. Even in her section 164 Cr.PC statement the victim has stated about the sexual assaults committed by her father. Learned P.P. further submits that the victim did not have any injuries on her private parts as the medical examination was conducted on 03.09.2020 which was after a lapse of about two months from the last date of sexual assault. The PW-5/M.O who examined the victim also deposed that the hymen can be healed after about one week. Therefore, the fact that there were no injuries on the private parts of the victim or on her body cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. 17. Learned P.P. has relied in the case of Ganesan vs State reported (2020) 10 SCC 573 , wherein the Supreme Court held that “a prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on 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. The evidence of a prosecutrix must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured witness 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 witness”. The Court also held that “absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a factor that leads the Court to absolve the accused”. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured witness”. The Court also held that “absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a factor that leads the Court to absolve the accused”. The Court further held that “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 a prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars”. 18. Learned Public Prosecutor relying on the above mentioned judgments, submits that even in the present case, the contradictions in the date or month of the incident are minor contradictions and insignificant discrepancies and the otherwise reliable deposition of the victim has not been rebutted by the defence. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under section 6 of the POCSO Act and has rightly sentenced the accused/appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 years as provided under section 6 of the POCSO Act and therefore, learned P.P. prays that the conviction and sentence may be upheld by this court in the interest of justice. 19. Learned counsel Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu Legal Aid Counsel appears for the respondent No.2/informant. Learned counsel has also adopted the submissions of the learned P.P and submits that it needs to be kept in mind that the informant/PW-2 is not an educated person but a mere vegetable seller and accordingly certain discrepancies and inconsistencies are bound to creep into her deposition. However, if the main substance regarding the sexual assault remains unrebutted, the prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel submits that there was no enmity between the informant and the appellant accused and there was no reason for the informant to make false accusation against her ex-husband. He submits that there is nothing on record to show that the informant had any hatred towards the appellant/accused. In fact, she would not have sent the victim to stay with her father/appellant if there was any such enmity or animosity. He submits that there is nothing on record to show that the informant had any hatred towards the appellant/accused. In fact, she would not have sent the victim to stay with her father/appellant if there was any such enmity or animosity. Relying on the case of Yogesh Singh vs Mahabeer Singh and Others , reported in (2017) 11 SCC 195 , learned counsel submits that it is well settled that minor discrepancies are not to be given due emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. Learned counsel has also relied on the case of Budheswar Hazarika vs State of Assam reported in 2024 SCC online Gau 130. 20. The Court has duly considered the submissions of the opposing parties and also gone through the materials/evidence available in the case record S.C No.78/2020 in Criminal Trial 1239/2020 including the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the other documentary evidence. 21. PW-1 is the mother of the victim and the informant. PW-1 deposed that the accused was her husband. They married in the year 1997 and separated in 2016. She had four children with the accused and one child before she married him. The victim in this case is one of the children with the accused. She was born on 18.12.2004. She separated from her husband because he used to drink liquor and behave violently. After they separated she lived with her children in Aizawl and the accused lived in Ratu. The appellant/accused called her from Ratu and said that he needed some help doing the cooking and washing as he used to get very tired after the day’s work. He asked her to send one of the children and she sent the victim to be with her father. The victim went to Ratu in 2019 during the school holidays but she cannot remember the date or month. After she went to Ratu, she got admitted in a school there. In 2020, the victim returned to Aizawl. Initially she did not tell her anything about what happened at Ratu. She has having continuous vaginal bleeding and was getting very weak. She was also having pain in her pelvis and was sweating. She took her to the hospital and upon the Doctor’s advice, she had a blood transfusion. In 2020, the victim returned to Aizawl. Initially she did not tell her anything about what happened at Ratu. She has having continuous vaginal bleeding and was getting very weak. She was also having pain in her pelvis and was sweating. She took her to the hospital and upon the Doctor’s advice, she had a blood transfusion. She asked her daughter from her first marriage/PW-4 to help out and to ask the victim what had happened in Ratu. PW-4 told her that the appellant/accused had been raping the victim in Ratu. So she went to Aizawl P.S and filed the FIR. She proved the FIR as Exhibit P-2 and her signature therein as Exhibit P-2(a). 22. On being cross-examined, PW-1 denied that the accused has been implicated falsely because of hatred. She never knew of the victim being involved romantically with any boys. All her knowledge about the sexual assault was from PW-4. 23. PW-2 is the victim. She deposed that she was born on 18.12.2004. The accused is her father and she lives with her mother now. She had gone to Ratu in the beginning of 2020. Her father was staying there by himself and she went to live with him. There were two beds in the bedroom and she stayed in the same room. From the second night her father started assaulting her sexually. He took off her clothes and had sex with her. He was drunk and came to her bed. She kicked him off saying, “you are shameless” but he got on to the bed again and had sex with her forcibly. She went to school in Ratu and stayed there for about three months and returned to Aizawl in July. When she was in Ratu, her father raped her number of times and she lost count of how many times he actually did it. In the beginning she did not tell anybody but she had bleeding from her vagina which did not stop for more than a month. Without telling her mother about her father having sex with her, she told her about the bleeding and her mother took her to civil hospital Aizawl. She was examined by a Doctor and she gave her a prescription. When they went to buy the medicine the person at the Pharmacy told her mother that she must have had a miscarriage. Without telling her mother about her father having sex with her, she told her about the bleeding and her mother took her to civil hospital Aizawl. She was examined by a Doctor and she gave her a prescription. When they went to buy the medicine the person at the Pharmacy told her mother that she must have had a miscarriage. Her mother asked her that night if anybody have sex with her but she did not tell her mother. The next day she told her elder sister/PW-4 about what her father had done. PW-4 told her mother and the next day they went to the Police station and her mother filed the FIR. She was taken for a medical examination to the Civil Hospital Aizawl. She was also taken for age determination x-ray as her birth certificate could not be found. She proved the section 164 statement as exhibit P-1 and her signature therein as Exhibit P-1(a). 24. On being cross-examined PW-2/victim denied the suggestion that the accused had never assaulted her sexually and that he has been implicated falsely due to hatred. She stated that she does not remember the month and date of the first assault. She also stated that she was not tutored to depose before the Court. She further stated that they have other relatives from her mother’s side in Ratu. Her mother’s younger sister also lived in Ratu and she used to visit her but her father discouraged her from visiting her aunt and did not allow her to stay with her aunt. She was close to her aunt but was scared to tell her anything because she was afraid of her father. 25. PW-4 is the elder sister of the victim. She deposed that the appellant/accused is her step father. The victim is her half sister and the biological daughter of the accused/appellant. The victim had gone to stay with the accused during the time of the incident. On 03.07.2020, the victim girl came back to Aizawl to stay with their mother. After the victim came back from Ratu she was looking depressed and different from her normal self. When her mother told her over the phone that the victim girl was bleeding a lot and that she had taken her to the hospital, she suspected that she must be having a miscarriage and she told about the fears to her mother. After the victim came back from Ratu she was looking depressed and different from her normal self. When her mother told her over the phone that the victim girl was bleeding a lot and that she had taken her to the hospital, she suspected that she must be having a miscarriage and she told about the fears to her mother. It was confirmed that she had a miscarriage. Her mother then told her that she should ask the victim girl what had happened. She immediately suspected her step father since he had previously sexually molested her also. When she asked the victim whether the accused was responsible for what had happened to her, she was hesitant to tell her in the beginning and she was crying a lot but when she insisted the victim finally admitted that the accused was responsible. When she kept asking the victim the number of times the accused has sexually molested her she finally admitted that the accused had sexually molested on more than 10 occasions. The victim told her that the accused used to tell her to sleep naked when he came home at night but she did not do so because she did not want to do such a thing. She deposed that she is not very sure about the dates that she mentioned. The FIR was submitted by her mother. 26. In her cross-examination., PW-4 denied the suggestion that the incident had been fabricated by her. She stated that she was married and living with her husband and was not living with the victim girl at the time of the incident. She denied the suggestion that she had deposed in the Court only because she was asked by the Police. She admitted that she did not see the incident. PW-4 also admitted that she could not remember the date or time when the accused had sexually molested her since it was many years back. 27. PW-5 is the Doctor who examined the victim. She deposed that she is working as a Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital since 2019. She deposed that on 03.09.2020 she received a requisition from the All Women P.S Aizawl to conduct a medical examination of the victim aged about 15 years and she conducted the examination on the same day. She took the consent of the victim and asked her about the history of the incident. She deposed that on 03.09.2020 she received a requisition from the All Women P.S Aizawl to conduct a medical examination of the victim aged about 15 years and she conducted the examination on the same day. She took the consent of the victim and asked her about the history of the incident. The victim told her that her biological father has been raping her since 2 years back. PW-5 deposed that upon examining her there was no bruising or laceration of external genitalia and her hymen was ruptured (old). She proved the Exhibit-P-3 as medical examination report of the victim and exhibit-3(a) as her signature in the report. 28. In her cross-examination PW-5 deposed that the victim told her that the last intercourse was 2 months back. She conducted the medical examination on 03.09.2020 which was after a lapse of 2 months. She stated that the victim hymen rupture was old but she cannot say when it was ruptured. She also agreed that the hymen can be healed in about one week. 29. PW-6 is the Doctor who examined the appellant/accused. He deposed that he is working as a Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital since 2019. He stated that on 03.09.2020 he received a request from All Women P.S Aizawl to examine the accused. He examined the accused on the same day and submits that he was physically and mentally fit and his genital organs were perfectly fine and he can perform sexual activity. There were no marks of violence/injury on his body. PW- 6 proved the medical examination report of the accused as Exhibit-4 and Exhibit P-4(a) as his signature in the examination report. 30. PW-7 is the Radiologist who took the x-ray for age determination of the victim. PW-7 deposed that the impression from the Radiological finding is that the age of the victim is between 15 to 16 years. Even in his cross-examination the PW-7 re-affirmed that the victim is not less than 15 years and not more than 16 years. He proved the x-ray report as Exhibit P-6 and his signature therein as Exhibit P-6(a). 31. PW-9 was the Officer-in-Charge of the Darlawn Police station in the year 2020. Even in his cross-examination the PW-7 re-affirmed that the victim is not less than 15 years and not more than 16 years. He proved the x-ray report as Exhibit P-6 and his signature therein as Exhibit P-6(a). 31. PW-9 was the Officer-in-Charge of the Darlawn Police station in the year 2020. He deposed that on 03.09.2020 an FIR was submitted by the PW-1 at the Aizawl All Women Police Station stating that her daughter aged about 15 years was sexually assaulted by the accused/appellant who was her father many times by having penetrative sexual assault. The case was registered as All Women Police Case No.27/2020 under section 376(3) IPC R/W section 6 POCSO Act. PW-9 deposed that he received a telephonic request from the All Women Police Station to apprehend the accused as Ratu village falls under the jurisdiction of Darlawn PS. He apprehended the accused and prepared a sketch map and handed over to the All Women Police Station Aizawl. 32. PW-10 is the I.O of the case. He deposed that on 03.09.2020 an FIR was lodged by the PW-1 stating that her daughter aged about 15 years was sexually assaulted by having penetrative sex by her father at his house located at Ratu. She further stated that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim multiple times and the last was on the night of 03.07.2020. He stated that the case was registered as All Women PS Case No.27/2020 under section 376(3) IPC read with section 6 POCSO Act. He deposed that the complainant said that there was delay in filing the FIR due to the fact that the victim disclosed about the incident only on 31.08.2020. She was married to the accused in the year 1997 and they have 4 issues out of their wedlock. They separated during the year 2016 after which she lived with her children in Aizawl and the accused lived in Ratu village. The accused has asked her to send one of their children to him because he was tired after working the whole day and she sent the victim to him to help her father in the household chores. She told him that the victim is the second youngest among her four siblings. 33. The accused has asked her to send one of their children to him because he was tired after working the whole day and she sent the victim to him to help her father in the household chores. She told him that the victim is the second youngest among her four siblings. 33. The PW-10 also deposed that he examined the victim who stated before him that her father had sexual intercourse with her from the second night of her stay with him. He used to come home drunk and come to her bed while she was asleep and had sexual intercourse with her forcefully. She further stated that she did not inform anyone about the sexual intercourse committed by her father because the accused had threatened her not to disclose about the incident to anyone. She also stated that the accused had sex with her number of times and she even lost count of how many times the accused had sexual intercourse with her. The victim had bleeding from her vagina and she informed about it to her mother and her mother took her to the Civil Hospital Aizawl and she was prescribed some medicine. The person who was sitting in the pharmacy also told her mother about his suspicion of miscarriage. The victim’s mother asked her if anybody had sex with her but she did not disclose to her mother, but she disclosed about the incident to her elder sister. Her elder sister told her mother about the incident and she even told her mother that the accused also once tried to insert his male organ to her private part when she was about 12 years of age during their mother’s absence. 34. PW-10 deposed that he recorded the statement of PW-4. He also forwarded the victim for medical examination to Aizawl Civil Hospital and to the District Court Aizawl for recording of statement by JMFC Aizawl. He also forwarded the victim for age determination X-ray to the Civil Hospital Aizawl. PW-10 further deposed that he arrested the accused on 06.09.2020 and interrogated him. While recording his statement the accused admitted before him that he had sexual intercourse with the minor victim in their bed and when he asked him how he could have sexual intercourse with his own daughter who is also a minor to which the accused answered by saying that, “satan must have possessed me”. While recording his statement the accused admitted before him that he had sexual intercourse with the minor victim in their bed and when he asked him how he could have sexual intercourse with his own daughter who is also a minor to which the accused answered by saying that, “satan must have possessed me”. PW-10 identified and proved the charge-sheet as exhibit P-8 and his signature in the charge-sheet as exhibit P-8(a). He proved the arrest memo and his signature as exhibit P-9 and P-9(a) respectively. 35. On being cross examined PW-10 stated that there is nothing in the investigation to indicate that the victim was raped by the accused other than what was directly stated to him by the victim herself. 36. The accused examined himself as DW-1. On being cross-examined DW- 1/accused stated he was accused by his ex-wife of sexual assault against his daughter in 2015. He separated from his wife in 2015 because of the allegation. After that all his children lived with his ex-wife. DW-1 denied that he had asked the victim to come and stay with him in Ratu. But he admitted that she stayed with him for 3 months and went to school in Ratu. He contradicted himself by denying that the victim came and stayed with him for 3 months in Ratu during 2020. He also denied that he raped her during this period. He also denied that he used to ask the victim to sleep naked or not to tell anybody about the sexual acts he committed with her and he also denied that he asked the victim not to visit his ex-wife relatives in Ratu. 39. This court is of the opinion that as far as the age of the victim is concerned, the same has been proved by the deposition of PW-7 as well as the exhibit P-6. PW-7 has deposed that as per his finding the age of the victim was between 15 to 16 years. This evidence could not be rebutted by the defense in the cross-examination. In fact, the defense has not raised any serious objection regarding the age of the victim. The deposition of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 along with exhibit P-6 has proved that the victim was a child within the definition of section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, 2012. 41. This evidence could not be rebutted by the defense in the cross-examination. In fact, the defense has not raised any serious objection regarding the age of the victim. The deposition of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 along with exhibit P-6 has proved that the victim was a child within the definition of section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, 2012. 41. In a case of sexual assault on a minor girl, what is important to keep in mind is that the minor girl, that too of the age of 15 years at the time of occurrence, would not ordinarily lie about being sexually assaulted. It is no longer res integra that a victim of rape stands on the same footing as an injured witness and her testimony holds significant weight. As an injured witness the victim’s evidence is viewed as more credible due to her direct involvement in the crime and the harm she has suffered. The testimony of a rape victim is considered reliable specially when there is no ulterior motive to falsely implicate the accused. While corroboration can strengthen the prosecution case, it is not always necessary to corroborate the testimony of a rape victim. Physical injuries on the victim can serve as corroborative evidence, but their absence doesn’t necessarily negate the victim’s testimony. The victim’s testimony provides direct evidence and unless there are substantial inconsistencies in her testimony, the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence alone. 42. In State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 , the Supreme 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 a statement of prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of the sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration”. The Court further held that “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 the FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof”. 43. In State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. The Court further held that the delay in filing the FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof”. 43. In State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Pankaj Chaudhary reported in (2019) 11 SCC 575 , the Supreme Court has held:- "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." 43. The evidence of the victim regarding the continued sexual assault by her own father over a long period of time could not be demolished during her cross- examination. The evidence of the victim inspires the confidence of the Court regarding the truthfulness of her allegations against the appellant/accused who is her own father. There are no inconsistencies in her deposition on the material facts. She has maintained the same version of her story throughout the statements before the Police; before the Magistrate in her 164 Cr.PC statement and before the trial Court that she had stayed with her father for about 3 months in Ratu village and that her father had sexually assaulted her multiple times during that period. In fact, the accused/appellant in his cross-examination as DW-1 affirmed that the victim stayed with him for 3 months and went to school at Ratu. The defense has not been able to rebut the evidence that the victim stayed with her father at Ratu village for about 3 months. 44. The delay in filing the FIR can also be condoned keeping in view the fact that the appellant/accused was none other than the biological father of the victim. The defense has not been able to rebut the evidence that the victim stayed with her father at Ratu village for about 3 months. 44. The delay in filing the FIR can also be condoned keeping in view the fact that the appellant/accused was none other than the biological father of the victim. As stated in the case of Sanjay Kumar@ Sunny(supra), it is not easy to lodge a complaint of this nature exposing the prosecutrix to the risk of social stigma which still prevails in our society. The decision to lodge FIR becomes more difficult and hard when accused happens to be a family member. 45. In view of the above discussion and observations, this Court is of the view that the evidence of the victim in the present case inspires confidence of the Court and it is cogent and reliable. As stated earlier the victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice and she stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. Her testimony is credible and trustworthy and has remained firm and unshaken during the cross-examination. The minor discrepancies regarding date and month are therefore, immaterial in the present case. In fact, the evidence of the prosecutrix is well supported by the medical evidence wherein it was found that her hymen was ruptured (old) which can be due to the fact that the examination was conducted after about 2 months from the last date of sexual assault. The testimony of the prosecutrix is also corroborated by the evidence of PW-1,PW-4 and PW-10. The evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-10 corroborate with each other to prove beyond doubt that the appellant/accused had committed the offence under section 6 of the POCSO Act. 46. From the above evaluation of the evidence, it is abundantly clear that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, the judgment and order dated 08.02.2024 and the sentence order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Special Judge POCSO Act, Aizawl Judicial district stands affirmed. The instant appeal is dismissed. 46. The Amicus Curiae for the appellant and the Legal Aid counsel for respondent No.2 are entitled to their usual remuneration from the Legal Service Authority/State Government. 47. Hence, the judgment and order dated 08.02.2024 and the sentence order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Special Judge POCSO Act, Aizawl Judicial district stands affirmed. The instant appeal is dismissed. 46. The Amicus Curiae for the appellant and the Legal Aid counsel for respondent No.2 are entitled to their usual remuneration from the Legal Service Authority/State Government. 47. The Registry shall send back the Trial Court Records and also supply a free copy of this judgment and order to the appellant/convict in the concerned Jail where he is serving his sentence. The Superintendent of the Jail shall apprise the convict/appellant that he can avail the services of a Legal Aid counsel for filing a petition for preferring an SLP before the Supreme Court of India. Appeal stands disposed of.