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: 60/2023 arising out of Crl.Trl. No. 192/2023 (Dungtlang P.S. Case No. 14/2023) registered under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, by which the accused/appellant has been convicted under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of 1 (one) year with a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) only, in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a term of 15 (Fifteen) days. 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 her daughter, who is about 6 years old inside his home and thereafter, took off her pant and underpant and as her daughter cried, he let her go without touching her further. Accordingly, a case was registered under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the investigation commenced. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer, PW-7 after completing the investigation, submitted the Charge-sheet. The Trial Court, upon receipt of the Charge-sheet, was pleased to frame charged against the accused under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. During trial, the prosecution examined 6 (six) Prosecution Witnesses including the victim. After the closure of the Prosecution Witnesses, the accused 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. 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. 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 criminal appeal being 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 criminal appeal being against conviction, let me now analyze the evidence on record. 9 . PW-1, who is the mother of the victim girl deposed that in the year 2018, the accused/appellant took her daughter inside his home and removed her pant and underpant to perform sexual intercourse. However, since she cried out, he let her go. She further deposed that the victim did not inform the incident at the time of occurrence, however, after lapse of several months, the wife of Pu Hmangaihkima and the wife of the accused/appellant had some misunderstanding and conflict with each other as a result of which the wife of Pu Hmangaihkima give her a call and informed her that the accused/appellant is involved in illegal activities and that her daughter was also one of such victims. She further deposed that accordingly, she asked her daughter who reluctantly informed her how the accused/appellant had sexually molested her. During cross-examination, she clarified that she believed that the accused/appellant was having a good character. 10 . PW-2, who is the victim herself deposed that though she could not recall the exact date and month, however, one day in the year 2018 while she and her cousin were playing on the nearby street of the residence of the accused/appellant, the accused/appellant came towards them and by luring them to pay a visit by offering an omelette and made them entered the house of the accused/appellant. She further deposed that after entering the house of the accused/appellant, her cousin ate the omelette at the kitchen while she was standing beside the television at the sitting room and that while her cousin was busy eating the omelette, the accused/appellant came beside her and striped down her trouser and underwear and while he was trying to remove his own trouser and underpant, she felt scared and cried out bitterly as a result of which the accused/appellant pulled up her clothes and told her to go. She further deposed that he also warned her not to tell anyone and that she immediately ran out of the house and waited for her cousin from outside. She further deposed that he also warned her not to tell anyone and that she immediately ran out of the house and waited for her cousin from outside. She further deposed that after the lapse of several months while she was at her classroom, one of her classmate told her about how she was sexually molested by the accused/appellant and after she came to know that the accused/appellant had sexually molested her classmate, she told her about her own incident. She further deposed that her classmate accordingly informed her mother about the incident of sexual assault committed by the accused/appellant to her and who thereafter informed the victim’s mother, i.e, PW-1. During cross-examination, she clarified that she first told about the incident to her classmate in the year 2023 and after that, she disclosed the incident to her parents. 11 . PW-3 and PW-4 are the seizure witnesses, who witness the seizure Birth 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. She could not recall the exact date and month. One day in the year 2018 while she and her cousin Christy are playing on the nearby street of the residence of the accused, the accused saw them and lured to pay a visit by offering an omelette. After they entered the house of the accused, her cousin Christy ate the omelette at the kitchen while she was standing beside the television at the sitting room. While her cousin Christy was busy eating the omelette the accused came beside her and striped down her trouser and her underwear. While he was about to remove his own trouser and underpant she feels scared and cried out bitterly as a result of which the accused pulled up her underwear and her trouser again and told her to leave the house. He also warned her not to tell anyone. She immediately ran out of the house and waited for her cousin Christy from outside. After the lapse of several months while they were at classroom, one of the victims Au Ruthi told her how she was sexually molested by the accused. As a result she also notify Au Ruthi about how the accused had sexually molested her. She immediately ran out of the house and waited for her cousin Christy from outside. After the lapse of several months while they were at classroom, one of the victims Au Ruthi told her how she was sexually molested by the accused. As a result she also notify Au Ruthi about how the accused had sexually molested her. Au Ruthi passed on the information to her mother who later on passed on the information to her mother.” 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 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. 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. 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 accounted the alleged sexual harassment committed by the accused/appellant upon her consistent from the stage of informing her mother who lodged the FIR to the stage of her deposition before the Trial Court. 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 gathered courage to tell her classmate about the sexual harassment committed to her by the accused/appellant. There appears to be nothing improbable or unbelievable to doubt the said allegation of sexual harassment 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. 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 neighbour of the victim, who took advantage of her 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. 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. 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. 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 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 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 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, apt to refer to Section 11 which provides the ingredient for constituting the offence of sexual harassment and punishment therefor under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which reads as hereunder:- “ 11. Sexual harassment.— A person is said to commit sexual harassment upon a child when such person with sexual intent,— (i) utters any word or makes any sound, or makes any gesture or exhibits any object or part of body with the intention that such word or sound shall be heard, or such gesture or object or part of body shall be seen by the child; or (ii) makes a child exhibit his body or any part of his body so as it is seen by such person or any other person; or (iii) shows any object to a child in any form or media for pornographic purposes; or (iv) repeatedly or constantly follows or watches or contacts a child either directly or through electronic, digital or any other means; or (v) threatens to use, in any form of media, a real or fabricated depiction through electronic, film or digital or any other mode, of any part of the body of the child or the involvement of the child in a sexual act; or (vi) entices a child for pornographic purposes or gives gratification therefor. Explanation.—Any question which involves “sexual intent” shall be a question of fact.” 20. Reading of the aforesaid provision, it appears that in order to constitute the offence of sexual harassment under Section 11 of the POCSO Act, 2012, amongst others, it is sufficient to establish that the accused/appellant has made the victim child exhibit her body or any part of her body with sexual intent. In the instant case, it is clearly established by the prosecution that the accused/appellant made the victim striped down her clothing including her underwear and was also removing his own trouser and underwear, however, since the victim cried out bitterly, he pulled up her clothes and told her to go away. In the instant case, it is clearly established by the prosecution that the accused/appellant made the victim striped down her clothing including her underwear and was also removing his own trouser and underwear, however, since the victim cried out bitterly, he pulled up her clothes and told her to go away. That being so, an offence under Section 11 is clearly made out for which the punishment is prescribed under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 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 16/09/2012. The alleged Birth Certificate is neither objected nor contested by defence. As per the Birth Certificate the victim x was about 6 years at the time of alleged sexual harassment 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? Pi Lalbiaksiami of Zawngtetui that during the year 2018, her daughter victim X had been sexually harrassed by Laldinsanga s/o Lalrinchhana(L) of zawngtetui at his house(Zawngtetui) by taking off her underwear thus requested to take necessary action(s). Hence, DUNGT P.S. Case No: 14/2023 Dt:2/6/23 u/s 12 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 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. During the course of investigation the case I/O recorded the statement of complainant, victim, Accused and other witnesses and the 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 was sent 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 12 POCSO Act, 2012 against the Accused Laldinsanga(32yrs) s/o Lalrinchhana(L) of Zawngtetui and hence Chargesheet No:11/2023 dt 26.06.2023 u/s 12 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. (ii) Whether the Accused Laldinsanga is liable to be convicted u/s 12 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. From the materials, evidences and documents on record it is clear that the Accused Laldinsanga had harassed the victim x with sexual intention. Considering all the materials and evidences there is no reason to implicate the Accused falsely by the victim. The minor child seldom tells a lies especially in connection with sexual matters and they always said what had happen on them and experience. In this case the victim clearly stated how the Accused acted upon her causing sexual harassment. There is no doubt on the statement of the victim. Therefore, it is strongly believe that the Accused had sexually harassed the victim one day in the year 2018. Hence, the Accused Laldinsang(32) s/o Lalrinchhana(L) of Zawngtetui is found guilty u/s 12 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, the Accused Laldinsang(32) s/o Lalrinchhana(L) of Zawngtetui is found guilty u/s 12 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.