JUDGMENT : MARLI VANKUNG, J. Heard Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and Mrs. Emily L. Chhangte, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2. 2 . This is an appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 03.09.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court, POCSO Act, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl on 03.09.2022 in S.C. No. 115 of 2018 and Crl. Trial No. 1418 of 2018 u/s 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 wherein the appellant was convicted u/s 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- (One thousand) i/d for another period of 1 year. 3 . The brief facts of the case is that on 01.10.2018, an FIR was received from the informant/prosecutrix to the effect that her parents had divorced and her mother had re-married the present appellant. She started to live with them from December 2017. During the month of January – March, 2018, her step father had forcefully had sexual intercourse with her against her will many times in their residence at Thingsulthliah and in the jhum hut of a farm in the forest. Being aggrieved, she had filed the instant FIR so that legal action is taken against her step father. The FIR was duly registered as BKN-PS Case No. 156/2018 dated 16.07.2018 u/s 6 of the POCSO Act. 4 . During the investigation, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination along with the accused. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded u/s 164 CrPC and the case I.O. also examined the other witnesses. On receiving the medical examination report, the case I.O. found prima facie case against the accused u/s 6 of the POCSO Act and accordingly filed the charge-sheet. 5 . The learned Trial Court framed charged u/s 6 of the POCSO Act on 17.09.2018 which the accused pleaded guilty and claimed trial. During trial, as many as 8 prosecution witnesses were examined. The accused on examination u/s 313 CRPC denied all the incriminating evidence made out against him. Thereafter, he deposed before the Court as defense witness. 5 . The learned Trial Court framed charged u/s 6 of the POCSO Act on 17.09.2018 which the accused pleaded guilty and claimed trial. During trial, as many as 8 prosecution witnesses were examined. The accused on examination u/s 313 CRPC denied all the incriminating evidence made out against him. Thereafter, he deposed before the Court as defense witness. The learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties found the accused/appellant guilty and convicted him u/s 6 of the POCSO Act and accordingly sentenced him to undergo 10 years R.I. and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- i/d for 1 year. Aggrieved, the accused/appellant filed the Jail Appeal. Submissions made by the learned counsels 6 . Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the judgment & order is liable to be set aside on the grounds that there was a delay in filing the FIR, which has not been properly explained. He submits that though the incident was said to be during the month of January – March, 2018, however, the FIR was filed only on 16.07.2018, and there is no explanation to the delay of 5 months. In support of his submission, he has cited the judgment of the Apex Court in Satpal Singh vs. State of Haryana , (2010)8 SCC 714 (para 15) and Prakash Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2019) 5 SCC 628 (para 27). 7 . The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecutrix is not a sterling witness and her evidence cannot be relied upon. He has led this Court to the deposition to the prosecutrix before the Court as PW No. 1 and also to the statements made by her u/s 164 CrPC. The learned counsel pointed out that though the prosecutrix had mentioned that the appellant had sexually assaulted her 4 times in her statement u/s 164 CrPC, in her deposition she had mentioned that the accused/appellant had sexually assaulted her 5 times. He further pointed out that in her deposition before the Court, she had mentioned that she first informed about the incident of sexual assault to grand-daughter of Mr. Hunga, while in her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC, she had mentioned that she informed about the incident to uncle Faka. He further pointed out that in her deposition before the Court, she had mentioned that she first informed about the incident of sexual assault to grand-daughter of Mr. Hunga, while in her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC, she had mentioned that she informed about the incident to uncle Faka. There are also discrepancies regarding the place of the incident where in her FIR she had mentioned that the accused/appellant had assaulted her in ‘Jhum hut’ while there is no such mention of a ‘Jhum hut’ in her deposition or her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC. The learned counsel thus submits that due to the said discrepancies in her statements she is not a sterling witness and her evidence cannot be relied upon. The learned counsel has cited the judgment of the Apex Court Rai Sandeep vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 (para 22), wherein the Apex Court has described who can be called a sterling witness. 8 . The learned counsel further submits that though the defense witness, who is the accused/appellant himself in his deposition had admitted that he had sexual intercourse with the victim/prosecutrix, however, this plea of guilt is not recorded as per the requirements u/s 229 of the CrPC. 9 . Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on the other hand, submits that the said discrepancies pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae are with regards to the person to whom she is said to have disclosed about the incidents. However, the prosecutrix is consistent with the fact that the accused/appellant had sexually assaulted her and thus, there is no reason to doubt her statements regarding her being sexually assaulted by the accused/appellant. The discrepancies mentioned do not affect or nullify the fact that the prosecutrix was sexually assaulted by the accused/appellant and the discrepancies mentioned are minor and do not vitiate the case against the accused/appellant. 10 . Mrs. Emily L. Chhangte, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2/prosecutrix submits that the defense witness, who is the accused/appellant himself has voluntarily admitted that he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and that he was well aware that she was a minor at the time of the incident. She further submits that a delay in filing of the FIR does not necessarily nullify the evidence of the prosecutrix. She further submits that a delay in filing of the FIR does not necessarily nullify the evidence of the prosecutrix. She has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Sanjay Kumar (Alias Sunny) (2017) 2 SCC 51 (para 24). Evidence Adduced 11 . In order to fully appreciate the submissions of the learned counsels for both the parties, the evidence adduced before the Trial Court is briefly reproduced herein under: 12 . PW-1/X deposed that she was very young and had not yet started school when her parents divorced. After that, she started living with her maternal grandmother in Chawngtui 'A', Champhai District. While she was living with her grandmother, her maternal uncle Laldawngliana had sexually assaulted her five times. Each time the assaults happened by him taking off her clothes and inserting his penis into her vagina. She told her grandmother and also the YMA Leaders. They put her in a shelter home in Champhai. Last year, her mother's younger sister Zionramngaii took her out of the shelter home and kept her in her house in Sihphir. From December 2017, she began to live with her mother in Thingsulthliah, Salem Veng. Her mother, stepfather, their two children, her younger brother, and she were staying together. Her stepfather, C. Lalthakima, started sexually assaulting her in January that year. The first time happened when they had gone to collect firewood. Her stepfather and she had gone together. On the way back, he squeezed her breasts. When she objected, he said that if she told her mother, he would send them to jail. He also said that he would lock the house, and they would not have a place to stay. So she did not tell her mother anything. In February, he took her hunting for birds and animals. Only the two of them had gone hunting. In the jungle, he squeezed her breasts and took off her pants. He inserted his penis into her vagina. Again, he told her not to tell her mother what he had done. He raped her a second time in February in the jungle when they had gone hunting. In March that year, her mother had gone to gather some eatables from the forest, and while she was away, her stepfather C. Lalthakima raped her in the house by inserting his penis into her vagina. He raped her a second time in February in the jungle when they had gone hunting. In March that year, her mother had gone to gather some eatables from the forest, and while she was away, her stepfather C. Lalthakima raped her in the house by inserting his penis into her vagina. She told the granddaughter of her neighbor, Pu Hunga, about the sexual assaults. She told some other people, and the matter reached the knowledge of the Child Welfare Committee Aizawl. They put her in the Daffodils Heaven Children's Home. She told the caretakers at the home about the sexual assaults, and they took her to Bawngkawn Police Station, where she filed an FIR. After that, she was taken to a doctor for a medical examination, and she was also taken to court for her statement to be recorded. During cross-examination, she stated that she had studied up to class 3 in Chawngtui 'A', and after being placed in the shelter home in Champhai, she continued class 3. She had just started class 4 when her aunt took her out of the shelter home. The accused C. Lalthakima did not beat her or physically assault her apart from the sexual assaults. She does not know the exact date when she left the shelter home at Champhai and began to live in Sihphir. She also does not know the exact date when she began to live in the Daffodils Heaven Children's Home. Even her younger brother David was staying with her in the Daffodils Heaven Children's Home. She has only one brother. She has two half-siblings from her mother's second husband, C. Lalthakima. Before she told Pu Hunga's granddaughter about the sexual assaults, her mother and stepfather had an argument, and her stepfather told her mother in the course of the argument that he was having sex with her. The contents of the FIR were written down as per her dictation. She told the police about what had happened, and they prepared the FIR. 13 . PW-2/R. Lalhriatpuii deposed she has been working as a case worker at Daffodils Haven Children's Home since April 2012. On 04.07.2018, a child X was placed by the CWC at the Home. She spoke to the child, and X told her that she had been sexually assaulted by her stepfather, C. Lalthakima, four times. 13 . PW-2/R. Lalhriatpuii deposed she has been working as a case worker at Daffodils Haven Children's Home since April 2012. On 04.07.2018, a child X was placed by the CWC at the Home. She spoke to the child, and X told her that she had been sexually assaulted by her stepfather, C. Lalthakima, four times. As X wanted to file a police case, she accompanied X to Bawngkawn P.S., where X filed an FIR. During cross-examination, she stated that as case worker, her duty is to talk to the child to find out the background and history. If necessary, they have family intervention by visiting and speaking to the family. She also has to coordinate with the CWC for their inquiries and for investigation, preparation of the social investigation report, etc. The knowledge she has about the sexual assault is only from information given to her by X. X could not tell her the exact dates but told her the months when the assaults happened. 14 . PW-3/Ennet B. Lalthlengliani deposed that she has been working at Daffodils Haven Children's Home as a counselor since 2015. On 04.07.2018, the Child Welfare Committee admitted X to the Home. On 13.07.2018, she counseled X. X told her that while she was living with her mother and stepfather in Thingsulthliah, her stepfather had sexually assaulted her four times. The day of the counseling was a Friday. The next Monday, she took X to Bawngkawn P.S., where X filed an FIR. During cross-examination, she admitted that her knowledge about the sexual assaults is only from what X told her. She accompanied X for her medical examination. 15 . PW-4/Dr. Vanlalhruaii Fanai deposed that in 2018, she was posted at the Civil Hospital Aizawl as a consultant. On 16.7.2018, she received a requisition from Bawngkawn PS to conduct a medical examination of the victim in a case of alleged sexual assault. The victim, who was produced for examination, was a young girl, but she could not tell her age. She was sent to a radiologist to determine her age medically. The doctor took the consent of a home counselor accompanying the girl in writing and conducted the examination. The examination revealed that the girl was physically and mentally normal and not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. She was sent to a radiologist to determine her age medically. The doctor took the consent of a home counselor accompanying the girl in writing and conducted the examination. The examination revealed that the girl was physically and mentally normal and not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The genital examination showed that the organs were fully developed, with no bruising or laceration on the external genitalia. However, there was swelling around the hymen, and the margins were irregular. Due to the swelling, it was not possible to determine whether the hymen was intact. The child informed the doctor that the man who had assaulted her had used a condom. Exbt. P-2 is the report of the medical examination containing the doctor's findings. Exbt. P-2-A is her signature. During cross-examination, she stated that the swelling would have been caused by external pressure exerted on the area, which would have occurred not more than 72 hours before the examination. Due to the swelling, the doctor could not determine whether the hymen was ruptured or not. 16 . PW-5/ Dr. Laldinpuii Ralte deposed that in 2018, she was posted at the Civil Hospital, Aizawl as a Medical Officer. On 21.7.2018, she received a requisition from Bawngkawn PS to conduct the medical examination of the accused in a case of alleged sexual assault. The accused produced for examination was a man aged about 48 years. She took his consent in writing and conducted the examination. The examination revealed that the accused was physically and mentally normal and not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The genital examination showed that the organs were normally developed, with no scratches or lacerations on the genital organ. It appeared from the development of the organs that he would be capable of engaging in sex normally. Exbt. P-3 is her medical examination report. Exbt. P-3-A is her signature. The defense counsel declined cross-examination. 17 . PW-6/Dr. Hauthangpuia deposed that he does not know the accused, and he was not produced before him. On 16.7.2018, he was on duty as a Radiologist at Civil Hospital, Aizawl. The victim was produced before him for age determination on requisition from the police. He conducted and examined the X-ray of the elbow joint, wrist joint, and pelvis. On examination of the X-ray results, he determined the age of the victim to be between 11-12 years. On 16.7.2018, he was on duty as a Radiologist at Civil Hospital, Aizawl. The victim was produced before him for age determination on requisition from the police. He conducted and examined the X-ray of the elbow joint, wrist joint, and pelvis. On examination of the X-ray results, he determined the age of the victim to be between 11-12 years. The details of his report is seen at Exbt. P-5. Exbt. P-5 is the radio diagnosis and imaging report. Exbt. P-5(a) is her signature. During cross-examination, he deposed that he did not conduct an MRI test; he only conducted an X-ray test. He also admitted that in some exceptional cases, the development of bone is not always the same. He further admitted that upon examination of the victim, the age can be 11 years or can be 12 years. 18 . PW-7/Cacy Malsawmtluangi deposed that on 18.7.2018, she was posted as Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Aizawl. The victim, aged about 11 years, was produced before her on requisition from the police for recording of a judicial statement. She followed the procedure for recording a judicial statement. The judicial statement recorded by her and placed on record is a verbatim account of the victim's statement. The victim was accompanied by a case worker from Daffodil Home and was made to wait outside while the statement was being recorded. There was no undue influence on the victim to give a statement. From the victim's demeanor, she appeared to be willingly giving the statement and did not appear to be tutored. Exbt. P-6 is the form of recording the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Exbt. P-6(a) is her signature. 19 . PW-8/R. Zonunsangi deposed that in the year 2018, she was posted at IUCAW Cell, Aizawl as Inspector of Police. On 16.07.2018, a written FIR was received from X, the 11-year-old daughter of Malsawmthanga, accompanied by some workers of Daffodil's Heaven Children's Home, ITI Aizawl. In the FIR, it was mentioned that X had been sexually assaulted many times by her stepfather, C. Lalthakima, from January to March 2018 at home while her mother was out and in the forest when they went out for work. Accordingly, a case was registered at Bawngkawn Police Station as PS Case No. 156/2018 dated 16.07.2018 u/s 6 POCSO Act, 2012 , and it was endorsed to her by Bawngkawn P/S Officer-in-Charge at IUCAW Cell Aizawl. Accordingly, a case was registered at Bawngkawn Police Station as PS Case No. 156/2018 dated 16.07.2018 u/s 6 POCSO Act, 2012 , and it was endorsed to her by Bawngkawn P/S Officer-in-Charge at IUCAW Cell Aizawl. During her investigation, she informed CWC and visited the place of occurrence. She examined and recorded the statement of X. She also recorded the statement of two other witnesses, namely R. Lalhriatpuii D/o of R. Lalliana of Zotlang and B. Lalthlengliani D/o B. Thanlawma of Tuikual North. She also arrested the accused, C. Lalthakima, and forwarded him for medical examination. She also sent X for medical examination at Aizawl Civil Hospital. The medical examination showed that the hymen of X had irregular margins with swelling around the edges. She also forwarded X for a judicial statement. As X did not have her birth certificate, she sent X for age determination to Civil Hospital Aizawl. In the said report, the age of X was determined to be 11 to 12 years old. The accused was also interrogated by her, where he admitted his guilt of committing the offense. She found a prima facie well-established case against the accused u/s 6 of POCSO Act and submitted the charge sheet. Exbt. P-4 is the charge sheet submitted by her. Exbt. P-4-A is her signature. During cross-examination, she stated that a complaint was filed after 5 months of the alleged incident. The reason for the delay in filing the said complaint was not explained. As far as she knew, there was no quarrel between the accused and the mother of X at the relevant time. The medical report did not show that there was a rupture in the hymen. The accused denied having sexual intercourse with X multiple times. All the interrogations in connection with the instant case were conducted inside IUCAW Cell. 20 . On examination u/s 313 CrPC, the appellant admitted that he was married to the mother of victim and that X started living with him since December 2017. He denied that he had committed any offence. He explained that during January 2018 to March 2018, he was in the jhum field and had returned during the month of February to the home. During this time he had sent the victim and her younger brother Davida to pluck tamarind fruits. They returned very late and due to his questionings, they had falsely implicated him. He explained that during January 2018 to March 2018, he was in the jhum field and had returned during the month of February to the home. During this time he had sent the victim and her younger brother Davida to pluck tamarind fruits. They returned very late and due to his questionings, they had falsely implicated him. He denied the evidence that he had raped the victim multiple times inside their residence and sometimes outside when he went hunting for birds. He denied that he had threatened the victim or her mother. He further stated that he was afraid that the police would torture him and therefore he had confessed. The police did not torture him and he had been falsely implicated as it was reported by the younger brother of victim that the owner of tamarind tree Lalhungchhunga had slept with the victim. 21 . DW-1/C. Lalthakima deposed that the alleged victim is his stepdaughter. He was married to the mother of the victim in the year 2013. The victim did not accompany her mother to his residence. The victim was residing with her grandmother at Chawngtui. In the year 2016, the victim was allegedly raped at Chawngtui by two persons. The victim was then lodged in the Champhai Shelter Home. The victim and her younger brother were then taken out by their aunt at Sihphir. During her stay at Sihphir, it was alleged that the brother and sister indulged in sexual activities and had also stolen money from the aunt. In the year 2017, the victim, accompanied by her younger brother Davida, came to reside in his residence at Thingsulthliah, sent by their aunt. During their stay at his residence, both the brother and sister continued to indulge in sexual activities. They used to use the bathroom for a long time together. He also witnessed the victim indulging in sexual activity with her younger brother on their main bed. The younger brother was lying on the bed, and the victim was on top. The victim also secretly watched his wife and him in bed at night. The younger brother had seen the victim secretly watching them and had informed him. The victim also allegedly sold herself to Lalhungchhunga. He had sent the brother and sister to collect tamarind from the tree near the house of Lalhungchhunga during February 2018. The victim also secretly watched his wife and him in bed at night. The younger brother had seen the victim secretly watching them and had informed him. The victim also allegedly sold herself to Lalhungchhunga. He had sent the brother and sister to collect tamarind from the tree near the house of Lalhungchhunga during February 2018. When they had returned home late with few tamarinds, he rebuked them, and the younger brother informed him that the victim had sent him, who was small, to collect the tamarind, and that the victim and Lalhungchhunga had locked themselves inside the house of Lalhungchhunga. The brother informed him that he had peeped in and seen Lalhungchhunga sucking on the breast of the victim. The victim frequently visited the house of Lalhungchhunga and was also rebuked by her mother. The victim allegedly sent her younger brother to collect money from Lalhungchhunga, who gave Rs. 100. He does not recollect the exact date, but sometime in February 2018, while they had gone to the jungle, the victim enticed him, and he could not resist, and finally, he had sexual intercourse with the victim. He did not force himself on the victim; in fact, it was the victim who had teased and enticed him to have sexual intercourse. The victim was still a minor. During cross-examination, he deposed that the victim and her younger brother started residing with him from the end of the year 2017. He also admitted that his wife or he did not officially make any report regarding the activity of the victim and her brother to any organization or officials. He denied the victim and her brother did not indulge in sexual activity and that the victim did not sell herself to Lalhungchhunga. He also denied that the victim did not frequently visit the house of Lalhungchhunga, and that Lalhungchhunga did not give Rs. 100. He stated that the victim was sent to the Shelter Home after the alleged incident. He also admitted that he had sexual intercourse with the victim. He further admitted that he knew the victim was a minor in age. Findings and reasons thereof 22 . I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the documents on record. 23 . He also admitted that he had sexual intercourse with the victim. He further admitted that he knew the victim was a minor in age. Findings and reasons thereof 22 . I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the documents on record. 23 . It is seen that the first point taken by the learned Amicus Curiae is the delay is filing the FIR wherein the incident was said to be during the month of January – March, 2018, and the FIR was filed only on 16.07.2018, however, from the deposition of the prosecutrix it is seen that she told the granddaughter of her neighbor, Pu Hunga, about the sexual assaults after which she told some other people but these persons did not take the steps to file the FIR. One cannot accept a child of 12 years old to file an FIR on her own initiative unless assisted by an adult. Later the matter reached the knowledge of the Child Welfare Committee Aizawl and they put her in the Daffodils Heaven Children's Home where she told the caretakers at the home about the sexual assaults, and they then took her to Bawngkawn Police Station, where she filed an FIR. 24 . This court finds that the Apex Satpal Singh V. State of Haryana (supra) has dealt with the delay in filing of the FIR in rape cases which is also aptly applicable in the instant case and this court finds that the reason for the delay has been properly explained wherein the Apex court in Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana, (supra) held that “14. In a rape case the prosecutrix remains worried about her future. She remains in traumatic state of mind. The family of the victim generally shows reluctance to go to the police station because of society's attitude towards such a woman. It casts doubts and shame upon her rather than comfort and sympathise with her. Family remains concerned about its honour and reputation of the prosecutrix. After only having a cool thought is it possible for the family to lodge a complaint in sexual offences. It casts doubts and shame upon her rather than comfort and sympathise with her. Family remains concerned about its honour and reputation of the prosecutrix. After only having a cool thought is it possible for the family to lodge a complaint in sexual offences. (Vide Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. [ (1995) 5 SCC 518 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 977 : AIR 1995 SC 2472 ] and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [ (1996) 2 SCC 384 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 316 : AIR 1996 SC 1393 ] .) 15. This Court has consistently highlighted the reasons, objects and means of prompt lodging of FIR. Delay in lodging FIR more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Thus, FIR is to be filed more promptly and if there is any delay, the prosecution must furnish a satisfactory explanation for the same for the reason that in case the substratum of the evidence given by the complainant/informant is found to be unreliable, the prosecution case has to be rejected in its entirety. (Vide State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao [ (2008) 15 SCC 582 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1123].) 16. However, no straitjacket formula can be laid down in this regard. In case of sexual offences, the criteria may be different altogether. As honour of the family is involved, its members have to decide whether to take the matter to the court or not. In such a fact situation, near relations of the prosecutrix may take time as to what course of action should be adopted. Thus, delay is bound to occur. This Court has always taken judicial notice of the fact that: “ordinarily the family of the victim would not intend to get a stigma attached to the victim. Delay in lodging the first information report in a case of this nature is a normal phenomenon.” 17. Thus, delay is bound to occur. This Court has always taken judicial notice of the fact that: “ordinarily the family of the victim would not intend to get a stigma attached to the victim. Delay in lodging the first information report in a case of this nature is a normal phenomenon.” 17. In State of H.P. v. Prem Singh [ (2009) 1 SCC 420 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 351] this Court considered the issue at length and observed as under : (SCC p. 421, para 6) “6. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the delay in a case of sexual assault, cannot be equated with the case involving other offences. There are several factors which weigh in the mind of the prosecutrix and her family members before coming to the police station to lodge a complaint. In a tradition-bound society prevalent in India, more particularly rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that there is some delay in lodging the FIR.” 18. Thus, in view of the above, the delay in lodging FIR in sexual offences has to be considered with a different yardstick. If the instant case is examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in lodging the FIR has been satisfactorily explained. 25. It is also a settled law that in a case relating to an offence under the POCSO Act, a conviction can be based solely on the basis of the victim girl if the Court has to come to a finding as regard whether the testimony of the victim is wholly trustworthy, credible, unblemished and is that of a sterling quality. On scrutiny of the deposition of the prosecutrix before the court and her statement recorded under section 164 CrPC. It is seen that there are minor discrepancies regarding as to whom the prosecutrix first disclosed the incident, however, she is consistent in her narration of sexual assaults committed upon her by the appellant though her description of the incident in her statement under section 164 CrPC is a much more detailed narration. Both, in her deposition and statement under section 164 CrPC she has stated that the first incident happened when they had gone to collect firewood. On the way back, he squeezed her breasts. Both, in her deposition and statement under section 164 CrPC she has stated that the first incident happened when they had gone to collect firewood. On the way back, he squeezed her breasts. When she objected, he said that if she told her mother, he would send them to jail. So she did not tell her mother anything. Her stepfather, C. Lalthakima, then sexually her in the month of January again in February, when he took her hunting for birds and animals. Only the two of them had gone hunting. In the jungle, he squeezed her breasts and took off her pants. He inserted his penis into her vagina. Again, he told her not to tell her mother what he had done. He raped her a second time in February in the jungle when they had gone hunting. In March that year, her mother had gone to gather some eatables from the forest, and while she was away, her stepfather C. Lalthakima raped her in the house by inserting his penis into her vagina. During her cross examination it is seen that her testimony has not been shaken to doubt the truthfulness of her deposition. 26 . This court at this stage find it appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ganesan Vs. State, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 573 wherein the Apex Court has held that where the testimony of victim is found reliable and trustworthy, conviction on the basis of such testimony alone is permissible. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid decision is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- "10.1. Whether, in the case involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc., can there be conviction on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix, in Vijay, it is observed in paras 9 to 14 as under: "9. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain this Court held that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Court observed as under: (SCC p. 559, para16) 16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Court observed as under: (SCC p. 559, para16) 16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.' 10. In State of U.P. v. Pappu this Court held that even in a case where it is shown that the girl is a girl of easy virtue or a girl habituated to sexual intercourse, it may not be a ground to absolve the accused from the charge of rape. It has to be established that there was consent by her for that particular occasion. It has to be established that there was consent by her for that particular occasion. Absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a factor that leads the court to absolve the accused. This Court further held that there can be conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and in case, the court is not satisfied with the version of the prosecutrix, it can seek other evidence, direct or circumstantial, by which it may get assurance of her testimony. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 597, para12). 12. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice, would do.' 11. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, this Court held that in cases involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc. the court is duty- bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The Court further held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof. The Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 394- 96&403, paras8 &21) 8.... The Court further held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof. The Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 394- 96&403, paras8 &21) 8.... The court overlooked the situation in which a poor helpless minor girl had found herself in the company of three desperate young men who were threatening her and preventing her from raising any alarm. Again, if the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver or the car, how can that become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix? The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix. The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.... Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury.... Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. 21.... The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations." (emphasis in original) 12. In State of Orissa v. Thakara Besra, this Court held that rape not mere physical assault, rather it often distracts (sic destroys) the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, non-examination even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence. 13. In State of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh this Court held that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Wahid Khan v. State of M.P. placing reliance on an earlier judgment in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan. 14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix." 10.2. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, it is observed and held by this Court that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. 10.3. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, it is observed and held by this Court that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. 10.3. Who can be said to be a "sterling witness", has been dealt with and considered by this Court in Rai Sandeepv. State (NCT of Delhi). In para 22, it is observed and held as under: (SCC p. 29) "22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross- examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged." 28 . It is also seen that PW-2 and PW-3 are the case workers at Daffodils Haven Children’s Home to whom the prosecutrix had also informed of the sexual assaults committed against her by the appellant. Their deposition is not shaken during cross examination .PW-4 is the doctor who had done the medical examination on 16.7.2018. She observed that the genital examination showed that the organs were fully developed, with no bruising or laceration on the external genitalia. However, there was swelling around the hymen, and the margins were irregular. Due to the swelling, it was not possible to determine whether the hymen was intact. The child informed the doctor that the man who had assaulted her had used a condom. Thus this court finds that the medical examination is neither here or there. PW-5 is the doctor who examined the appellant and found capable of having sex. PW- 6 is the medical doctor whodetermined the age of the prosecutrix to be between 11-12 years. Thus there is no doubt on the age of the child though no birth certificate was seized. PW-7 is the JMFC who proved the statement recorded under section 164 CrPC to be correct. PW- 6 is the medical doctor whodetermined the age of the prosecutrix to be between 11-12 years. Thus there is no doubt on the age of the child though no birth certificate was seized. PW-7 is the JMFC who proved the statement recorded under section 164 CrPC to be correct. PW-8 is the case I.O who found prima facie case against the appellant under section 6 POCSO ACT by recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses and from the medical examination reports. 29 . This court thus finds that the prosecution have established their case against the appellant and the defence/appellant from the testimony of the prosecutrix duly corroborated by the deposition of PW-2 & PW-3. 30 . It is also seen that the defence/appellant was also given the opportunity to prove his innocence by producing his defence witnesses. However, though the appellant while the framing of charge under section 6 of POCSO Act had pleaded not guilty and in his examination under section 313 CrPC had denied the evidence of committing sexual assault upon the prosecutrix, the appellant by deposing before the court as DW-1 had admitted that sometime in February 2018, while they had gone to the jungle, the victim enticed him, and he could not resist, and finally, he had sexual intercourse with the victim. He did not force himself on the victim; in fact, it was the victim who had teased and enticed him to have sexual intercourse and the victim was still a minor. 31 . Thus this court considering the findings as discussed above and also considering the admission made under oath by the appellant as Defendant witness DW-1, finds no reason to interfere with the Judgment & Order dated 03.09.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court, POCSO Act, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl on 03.09.2022 in S.C. No. 115 of 2018 and Crl. Trial No. 1418 of 2018 u/s 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 convicting the appellant u/s 6 of the POCSO Act and sentencing him to under R.I. for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- (One thousand) i/d for another period of 1 year. Accordingly Crl.A.No.15 of 2024 (J) is dismissed and disposed of. 32 . In appreciation of the services rendered by Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, the learned Amicus Curiae and Miss. 1000/- (One thousand) i/d for another period of 1 year. Accordingly Crl.A.No.15 of 2024 (J) is dismissed and disposed of. 32 . In appreciation of the services rendered by Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, the learned Amicus Curiae and Miss. Emily L. Chhangte, learned Legal Aid Counsel, the State Legal Services Authority is to pay the learned Amicus Curiae a fee of Rs. 7500/- and also pay the requisite fees to learned Legal Aid Counsel as per existing rates.