JUDGMENT : KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J. Heard H. Zodinsanga, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/appellant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mizoram appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/informant. 2. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment & Order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer/Judge, Fast Track Special Court (Rape & POCSO Act, 2012), Champhai District, Champhai in Case No. FTSC(CPI) POCSO: 59/2023 arising out of Crl.Trl. No. 191/2023 (Dungtlang P.S. Case No. 13/2023) registered under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, by which the accused/appellant has been convicted under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of 5 (five) years with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) only, in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a term of 1 (one) month. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that PW-1 lodged an FIR on 02.06.2023 alleging inter-alia that in the year 2018, the accused/appellant called his daughter, who is about 9 years old inside his home and thereafter, took off her clothes and even touched her breast. Accordingly, a case was registered under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation, wherein the statement of the victim as well as the statement of the other witnesses have been examined. After completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was submitted. Thereafter, the Trial Court framed charge under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the trial commenced. During trial, the prosecution examined 6 (six) Prosecution Witnesses. After the closure of the Prosecution Witnesses, the accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, where all the incriminating circumstances were put to him, which he generally denied, however, he adduced 2 (two) Defence Witnesses. After the closure of the evidence, the Trial Court pronounced its Judgment & Order on 22.04.2024, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted and sentenced thereof. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the FIR is filed after a gross delay from the alleged date of incident and that the prosecution has failed to give a reasonable explanation as regards the delay of filing of the FIR. He further submits that the age of the victim having not been proved, the conviction is vitiated. 5. Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the FIR is filed after a gross delay from the alleged date of incident and that the prosecution has failed to give a reasonable explanation as regards the delay of filing of the FIR. He further submits that the age of the victim having not been proved, the conviction is vitiated. 5. Per contra, Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the victim girl in her deposition before the Court has clearly explained the delay for which the FIR was filed. She further submits that in cases relating to offences under the POCSO Act, it is nothing unusual for the victim to finally reveal the alleged sexual assault after a considerable length of time. She further submits that it is the sole testimony of the victim girl, which in such cases is to be scrutinized properly so as to inspire the full confidence of the Court before acting on such testimony alone for convicting the accused person. In support of the aforesaid submission, she relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court in the case of:- (i) State of U.P Vs. Pappu Alias Yunus and Another, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 594 . (ii) Just Rights For Children Alliance and Another Vs. S. Harish and Others, reported in 2024 SC Online SC 2611. (iii) State of Mizoram Vs. Sh. Lalramliana & Another in Crl.A.No. 9/2019. (iv) Lok Mal Alias Loku Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 470 . 6. Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the version of the prosecutrix is unchallenged by the accused/appellant and therefore, the same is sufficient alone for maintaining the conviction against the accused/appellant. He further submits that the accused/appellant has failed to discharge the reverse burden as required under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 7. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the contending parties and have perused the materials available on record including the citations submitted at the bar. 8. This being an appeal against conviction, let me now analyze the evidence on record. 9 . 7. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the contending parties and have perused the materials available on record including the citations submitted at the bar. 8. This being an appeal against conviction, let me now analyze the evidence on record. 9 . PW-1, who is the father of the victim girl and also the informant in the case deposed that one day in the year 2018, the accused/appellant forcibly touched and played with the breast of his daughter inside his residence. He further deposed that the victim did not tell him about the incident at the time of occurrence as the accused/appellant warned her not to tell the incident to anyone. He further deposed that it was only when the daughter of Hmangaihkima disclosed that the accused/appellant had sexually abused her in the past, the victim told PW-1 about the incident. He exhibited the FIR and its contents. During cross-examination, he clarified that he had known the accused/appellant from several years back and as far as he know, the accused/appellant did not have any bad records in connection with the present offence and that he never thought that the accused/appellant had criminal intention for committing the present nature of offence. 10 . PW-2, who is the victim deposed that in the year 2018 while she was in Class-III, one day when she alongwith her younger brother went to the house of the accused/appellant to meet and play with the daughter of the accused/appellant, the accused/appellant who was at the fire place held her and asked her to clean his earwax. She further deposed that the accused/appellant told her brother and his daughter to go to the grocery store to buy sugar. She further deposed that though she tried to go with them, the accused/appellant did not permit her to go with them. She further deposed that the accused/appellant took her thereafter to his bedroom and made her lie down on the floor and touched her breast. She further deposed that he removed her trouser and her underpant and that while he was removing his own trouser, she became afraid and screamed at the top of her lungs. She further deposed that as a result of which, the accused/appellant dressed her up and she ran out of the house and fled into her own home. She further deposed that he removed her trouser and her underpant and that while he was removing his own trouser, she became afraid and screamed at the top of her lungs. She further deposed that as a result of which, the accused/appellant dressed her up and she ran out of the house and fled into her own home. She further deposed that as the accused/appellant warned her not to tell anyone, she did not tell even to her parents as she was afraid of the accused/appellant. She further deposed that after the lapse of several months, one of her classmate, who is the daughter of Hmangaihkima stated to her that the accused/appellant had raped her. After hearing the same, she also told her classmate about the incident that has occurred with her. During cross-examination, she clarified that she is not aware as whether she is related to the accused/appellant but she knows that her mother and the accused/appellant’s wife are friends. She further re-counted the entire facts constituting the act of sexual assault committed by the accused/appellant once again during her cross-examination. She further clarified that she had first told about the incident to her classmate as referred to her in her evidence-in-chief and who thereafter told her mother about the incident. 11 . PW-3 and PW-4 are the seizure witnesses, who witness the seizure Baptismal Certificate of the victim. 12. PW-6, who is the female Police Officer, who recorded the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.PC deposed that the victim stated as hereunder:- “She know the accused person. In the year 2018 while she was at class 3, one day she along with her younger brother Lalbawiha went to the house of the accused to meet and played with his daughter Miriami. The accused who was at the fireplace hold her and asked her to clean his earwax. In the meantime, the accused told her brother Lalbawiha and Miriami to go to a grocery store to buy sugar. She tried to follow them but the accused did not permit her to go with them. Thereafter, the accused took her to their bedroom and make her lie down on the floor and touched her breast. He also removed her trouser and her underpant. While he was removing his own trouser she was afraid and screamed at the top of her lungs. Thereafter, the accused took her to their bedroom and make her lie down on the floor and touched her breast. He also removed her trouser and her underpant. While he was removing his own trouser she was afraid and screamed at the top of her lungs. As a result, the accused dressed her up again and she ran out of the house and fled into their home. However, as the accused warned her not to tell anyone, she did not even tell her parents as she was afraid of the accused. After the lapse of several months one of her classmates who is the daughter of Pu Hmangaihkima stated that the accused Laldinsanga raped her. And as the accused also committed something like that to her she also told the incident to the said classmate.” During cross-examination, she clarified that she recorded the statement of the victim at Child Corner of the jurisdictional Police Station and the victim was accompanied by her mother. She further clarified that she was not wearing her uniform while she was recording the statement of the victim. 13. PW-7 is the Investigating Officer, who investigated the case and recorded the statement of the witnesses and thereafter submitted the Charge-sheet. 14. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused/appellant adduced the evidence of 2 witnesses, i.e., DW-1, who is his wife and DW-2, who is his sister. 15. DW-1 deposed that her husband, i.e., the accused/appellant is a hard- working man who mostly spend his time at jhum and there is no time for committing the alleged offence and that it is only on Sunday that he used to stay at home. 16. Similarly, DW-2 deposed that her brother, i.e., the accused/appellant is a hard-working man and it is only on Sunday that he used to stay at home. 17. It appears that the prosecutrix in the instant case is the sole eyewitness to the sexual assault committed upon her by the accused/appellant. In such cases, there is no bar for convicting an accused solely on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix without seeking corroboration in material particulars. However, the test is whether the testimony of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and is of trustworthy and sterling quality. In such cases, there is no bar for convicting an accused solely on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix without seeking corroboration in material particulars. However, the test is whether the testimony of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and is of trustworthy and sterling quality. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, upon re-scrutinizing the testimony of the prosecutrix, it appears that the prosecution has given her deposition in the Court in a realistic manner. It does not appear that the prosecutrix has been tutored or that she is making out a false allegation against the accused/appellant. In fact, she clearly deposes that around 2018, on a date which she does not remember when she visited the house of the accused/appellant with her brother to play with the daughter of the accused/appellant, the accused/appellant by sending her brother and his own daughter away, took her to his bedroom where he touched her in her breast and also removed her clothes. However, since she screamed, he let her go. It further appears that since she was warned by the accused/appellant not to disclose about the said incident, she kept quiet and it was only sometime in the month of June, 2023, when her friend who studied in her class, disclosed to her in the school that the accused/appellant had sexually assaulted her, she could gather her courage and told her classmate about the sexual assault that had happened to her. She having categorically stated that she was afraid of the accused/appellant and the threats given by him and that it was only when she came to know from her classmate that the accused/appellant had also sexually assaulted her that she could finally talk about the sexual assault committed upon her by the accused/appellant, there appears to be nothing improbable or unbelievable to doubt the said allegation of sexual assault made by her against the accused/appellant. In fact, the defence has also not shaken her credibility in any manner. This Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that sexual offence degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind the traumatic experience. In fact, it destroys the entire psychology of a child victim and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. This Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that sexual offence degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind the traumatic experience. In fact, it destroys the entire psychology of a child victim and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is therefore while dealing with cases of sexual crime against child victims that the Courts are expected to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity, sternness and severity. In the present case, the accused/appellant is the husband of the victim’s mother’s friend, who took advantage of the victim’s tender age to gratify his own animated passions for sexual pleasures. Such an offender is a menace to the society. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid that in cases of sexual offence of a child, if the Court accepts the version of the victim at its face value, there is no requirement to search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, that would lend assurance to her testimony and delay in such cases per-se is also not a mitigating circumstance for the accused. Therefore, delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for discarding the prosecution case and doubting its authenticity when the testimony of the victim appears to be totally reliable, trustworthy and credible. In such cases, it only puts the Court on guard to search for and consider if any explanation has been offered for the delay. In other words, the test is once an explanation is offered for the delay in lodging the FIR, the Court is to see whether it is satisfactory or not. Hence, if a satisfactory explanation of the delay is given by the prosecution, such delay is of no consequence. 18. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of H.P Vs Shree Kant Shekari, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 153 . Paragraph Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20 & 21 of the aforesaid Judgment are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “17. The High Court has also disbelieved the prosecution version for the so-called delay in lodging the FIR. The prosecution has not only explained the reasons but also led cogent evidence to substantiate the stand as to why there was delay. Paragraph Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20 & 21 of the aforesaid Judgment are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “17. The High Court has also disbelieved the prosecution version for the so-called delay in lodging the FIR. The prosecution has not only explained the reasons but also led cogent evidence to substantiate the stand as to why there was delay. The trial Court in fact analysed the position in great detail and had come to a right conclusion that the reasons for the delay in lodging the FIR have been clearly explained. 18. The unusual circumstances satisfactorily explained the delay in lodging of the first information report. In any event, delay per se is not a mitigating circumstance for the accused when accusations of rape are involved. Delay in lodging first information report cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for discarding prosecution case and doubting its authenticity. It only puts the court on guard to search for and consider if any explanation has been offered for the delay. Once it is offered, the Court is to only see whether it is satisfactory or not. In case if the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment or exaggeration in the prosecution version on account of such delay, it is a relevant factor. On the other hand satisfactory explanation of the delay is weighty enough to reject the plea of false implication or vulnerability of the prosecution case. As the factual scenario shows, the victim was totally unaware of the catastrophe which had befallen her. That being so, the mere delay in lodging of the first information report does not in any way render the prosecution version brittle. These aspects were highlighted in Tulshidas Kanolkar v. State of Goa ( 2003 (8) SCC 590 ). 19. The High Court by hypothetical calculations has concluded that there were discrepancies and has come to the presumptuous conclusion on mere surmises and conjectures that there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. In view of the above, conclusions of the High Court are not to be sustained. 20. It was also pleaded by the accused before the High Court which seems to have weighed regarding absence of any corroboration to the victim's evidence. 21. 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. 20. It was also pleaded by the accused before the High Court which seems to have weighed regarding absence of any corroboration to the victim's evidence. 21. 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 without corroboration in material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court on 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 suffice.” 19. In the instant case, it appears that PW-2 has re-counted the incident consistently right from the stage of informing her classmate till her deposition before the Trial Court. The prosecution has also sufficiently explained the delay in lodging the FIR. There is no reason for the victim to falsely implicate the accused/appellant, which would totally jeopardize her entire future. Therefore, the testimony of the victim is totally trustworthy and her evidence is to be believed. The offence under which the accused/appellant is convicted being Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, apt to refer to Section 7, which defines sexual assault and Section 9, which defines aggravated sexual assault, for which punishment is provided under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which reads as hereunder:- “ 7. Sexual assault.— Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault. 9. Aggravated sexual assault.— (a).. (b).. (c).. (d).. (e).. (f).. (g).. (h).. (i).. (j).. (k).. (l).. (m) whoever commits sexual assault on a child below twelve years; or (n).. (o).. (p).. (q).. (r).. (s).. (t).. (u).. (v)….is said to commit aggravated sexual assault.” 20. 9. Aggravated sexual assault.— (a).. (b).. (c).. (d).. (e).. (f).. (g).. (h).. (i).. (j).. (k).. (l).. (m) whoever commits sexual assault on a child below twelve years; or (n).. (o).. (p).. (q).. (r).. (s).. (t).. (u).. (v)….is said to commit aggravated sexual assault.” 20. Reading of the aforesaid provision, it appears that whoever with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child who is below 12 years or makes such child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is sufficient enough amongst others to constitute the offence of aggravated sexual assault. In the present case, the prosecution has established that the age of the victim girl is below 12 years and that the accused/appellant by undressing the victim and himself touched her breast. Therefore, an offence of aggravated sexual assault under Section 9 is clearly made out against the accused/appellant. 21. Turning back to the Judgment of the Trial Court, apt to refer to the relevant paragraphs, which reads as hereunder:- “11. Discussion, decision and reason thereof :- (i) Whether the Victim X is a child as per The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and whether she is below 12 years of age? As per clause(d) of section 2 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012-a "child" means any person below the age of eighteen years. The case I/O seized the alleged baptismal certificate of the victim which shows that the date of birth of the victim was 29/08/2011. The alleged Baptismal Certificate is neither objected nor contested by defence. As per the Birth Certificate the victim x was about 7 years on the date of aggravated sexual assault on her. Therefore, this point is decided that the victim x is a child and below 12 years of age at the time of incidence of the alleged offence. (ii) Whether the investigating agency duly followed the provisions of law while conducting investigation of the present case? Pu TC Lalnunthara of Zawngtetui that during the year 2018, his daughter victim X had been sexually assaulted by Laldinsanga s/o Lalrinchhana(L) of zawngtetui at his house(Zawngtetui) by taking off her clothes and touching her breast and thus requested to take necessary action(s). Pu TC Lalnunthara of Zawngtetui that during the year 2018, his daughter victim X had been sexually assaulted by Laldinsanga s/o Lalrinchhana(L) of zawngtetui at his house(Zawngtetui) by taking off her clothes and touching her breast and thus requested to take necessary action(s). Hence, DUNGT P.S. Case No: 13/2023 Dt:2/6/23 u/s 10 POCSO Act, 2012 was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation the case I/O recorded the statement of complainant, victim, Accused and other witnesses and the victim statement recorded by SI Liansangpuii of Champhai. Then he arrested the Accused after preparing arrest memo. He also seized alleged Baptismal Certificate of the Victim in the presence of civilian witnesses after preparing seizure memo. He sent the victim to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champhai for recording the statement of the victim judicially and intimation was given to CWC and special judge, CPI on 3.6.2023 and the Accused to CJM Champhai with a prayer to remand in Judicial Custody. After investigation was completed the case I/O found well-established a prima-facie case u/s 10 POCSO Act, 2012 against the Accused Laldinsanga (32yrs) s/o Lalrinchhana(L) of Zawngtetui and hence Chargesheet No:10/2023 dt 26.06.2023 u/s 10 POCSO Act, 2012 was submitted to the court for further necessary action. Hence, this court finds that the police officer duly followed the mandatory provisions of law while conducting investigation. Hence, this point is decided in favour of prosecution. (iii) Whether the Accused Laldinsanga is liable to be convicted u/s 10 of POCSO Act, 2012? As already stated above the prosecution has examined 6(six) witnesses and also exhibited whatever materials and documents brought forward before the court and their respective signatures thereon. The statement of the defence witnesses has no any substantive evidence and they deposed only what they believe and opinion which has not any value for decision of the court. Considering all the evidences, documents and materials it is believe that the testimony of the victim is reliable and trustworthy as the children seldom tell a lies especially in connection with sexual assault. The statement of the victim was recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC, 164 Cr.PC and also in the court and all her statement are similar to each one and other. Therefore, the statement of the victim inspire confidence of the court and could be relied on for conviction of the Accused even without any corroboration. The statement of the victim was recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC, 164 Cr.PC and also in the court and all her statement are similar to each one and other. Therefore, the statement of the victim inspire confidence of the court and could be relied on for conviction of the Accused even without any corroboration. Accordingly, the Accused Laldinsanga (32) s/o Lalrinchhana(L) of Zawngtetui is found guilty u/s 10 POCSO Act, 2012 for his violation of clause (m) of section 9 of POCSO Act, 2012.” 22. A perusal of the aforesaid Judgment of the Trial Court reveals that the Trial Court has based its conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, which, in the opinion of this Court, is totally trustworthy and of sterling quality. Hence, I am of the unhesitant view that the Trial Court has not committed any legal infirmities whatsoever in convicting the accused/appellant by the impugned Judgment & Order under appeal. That being so, the appeal is bereft of any merit whatsoever. 23. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 24. This Court appreciates the service rendered by Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned Amicus Curiae and his fee is fixed at Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred) only and the service rendered by Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, Legal Aid Counsel and his requisite fee is to be paid by the State Legal Services Authority as per existing rates.