JUDGMENT : (Michael Zothankhuma, J.) Heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned Amicus Curiae for respondent No. 1/accused. 2. This appeal has been filed against the Judgment & Order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the Special Court, POCSO Act, Lunglei in Criminal Trial No. 333/2017, by which the respondent No. 1 has been acquitted of the charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The appellant’s case is that, an FIR was submitted by the Prosecution Witness No. 1 (PW-1), who was the mother of the victim child, who had been alleged to have been raped by the respondent No. 1 on 03.07.2017 between 5:30 p.m and 7:00 p.m. The victim was 5 years old. 3. The FIR which was lodged on 05.07.2017, was registered by Lunglei Police and a case was registered as Lunglei P.S case No. 96/2017 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The victim was sent for medical examination on 05.07.2017, wherein the Doctor’s Medical Examination Report stated that there was a tear in the hymen of the victim at 4 O’clock position. The I.O. after having concluded the investigation submitted a charge-sheet, on finding a prima facie case against the respondent No.1 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 4 . The learned Trial Court framed a charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the respondent No. 1 stating that the respondent No. 1 had on 03.07.2017 sexually assaulted the victim, by inserting his finger and penis into the private parts of the victim and was thus liable to be punished under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The respondent No. 1 pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 5 . During the trial proceedings, ten (10) Prosecution Witnesses were examined by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein he was asked as to whether he had laid the victim on the table, took off her underwear and committed sexual intercourse with her. The respondent No. 1 denied having laid the victim on the table, taking off her underwear and committed sexual intercourse upon her. 6. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein he was asked as to whether he had laid the victim on the table, took off her underwear and committed sexual intercourse with her. The respondent No. 1 denied having laid the victim on the table, taking off her underwear and committed sexual intercourse upon her. 6. The only question put to the respondent No. 1/accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC and the answer to the same by the respondent No. 1 is reproduced herein below as follows:- “Q. No. 1. The evidence against you is that on 03.07.2017 in the evening, the victim Lalramchhani and her family visited you. After they left for home, the victim alone returned to your residence. You let her lying on the table, took off her underwear and committed sexual intercourse with her. What do you have to say? Ans: On the alleged day of the incident i.e. 03.07.2017 I had gone out to work with the father of victim for the whole day and return home late at about 6:00 pm due to rain. I am in good terms with the family of victim and had intention of living together at their residence. Many of my belongings were already shifted to their house before the alleged incident. On the day of incident I was packing my other belongings and the father, mother and victim had also come to my residence to help me out. I did not commit any offence against the victim. In fact it was the mother of victim who left my residence last and locked the door after I had departed for their residence along with my belongings. My residence is very bare and there is no table in my residence. There is only one long chair and one school table in my residence at the time of alleged incident.” 7. The learned Trial Court, in the impugned Judgment and Order, made an observation to the effect that in some cases under the POCSO Act, 2012, complaints were made in order to further the ulterior motives of the complainant/victim. The learned Trial Court, in the impugned Judgment and Order, also held that the demeanor of the victim at the time of examination by the Court was suspicious as to whether there was a chance of being tutored. The learned Trial Court, in the impugned Judgment and Order, also held that the demeanor of the victim at the time of examination by the Court was suspicious as to whether there was a chance of being tutored. It also held that the demeanor of the mother and father of the victim during the examination by the Court was also suspicious. 8. The learned Trial Court also held that the victim had not narrated anything except the pain on her back and that it was only after repeated questioning that the victim had narrated the offence allegedly committed by the respondent No. 1. Further, the complaint was made to the Police three days after the alleged incident had occurred. Further, as the statement of the respondent No. 1 in his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, was to the effect that the respondent No. 1 was the last person to have left his residence and he had thus no opportunity to commit the offence, the offence could not have been committed by the respondent No. 1. 9. The learned Trial Court thereafter came to a conclusion that the guilt of the respondent No. 1 had not been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. It also held that in view of the shifting of the residence of the respondent No. 1 with the family of the victim and the fact that the father of the victim and the respondent No. 1 were known to each other, the guilt of the respondent No. 1 had not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 10. The learned Trial Court thereafter acquitted the respondent No. 1 due to the above observations. 11 . The operative portion of the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the learned Trial Court is reproduced here as follows:- “It has been seen in some instance of allegations under the POCSO Act that the complaints are made in order to further ulterior motive by the complainant/victim. The demeanor of the victim at the time of examination by the Court was suspicious as to whether there was chance of tutoring. The demeanor of the complainant/mother of victim and father of victim during the examination by the Court is also suspicious. The demeanor of the complainant appeared spiteful whereas the demeanor of the father of the victim appeared neutral. The demeanor of the complainant/mother of victim and father of victim during the examination by the Court is also suspicious. The demeanor of the complainant appeared spiteful whereas the demeanor of the father of the victim appeared neutral. In analyzing the evidences that have been placed before the Court the sequence of events do not tally. The complainant had stated that the victim did not narrate any incident on the alleged date of incident except the pain of her back side. She further stated that it was only after repeated questioning that the victim narrated the alleged offence committed by the accused. It was only on the third day of the alleged incident that the complaint was made before the police. The statements of the accused during examination u/s 313 CrPC mentions that the complainant was the last person to have left his residence and that he did not have any opportunity to commit the offence since the father, mother, victim and himself were all present before they left with his belongings to shift residence with the family of victim. In considering all the evidences before the Court is considered to come to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused is not prove beyond reasonable doubt. There is reason to doubt the alleged offence considering the sequence of events leading/before the occurrence of the alleged offence i.e. shifting of residence of accused with the family of the victim. It is not denied that husband of complainant and accused were familiar with each other and had in fact known each other before their marriage and also that they were regularly engaged together as daily labors. In the above circumstances this Court is of the considered opinion that the guilt of the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and has afforded the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted of charges u/s 6 of the POCSO Act.” 12. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that when the victim has given a judicial statement under Section 164 Cr.PC, which corroborates the evidence of the victim showing that there had been aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim who is 5 years old, in terms of Section 5 (m) of the POCSO Act, 2012, the acquittal of the respondent No. 1 act was totally against all canons of justice. She further submits that minor contributions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the victim should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. In this respect, she relies on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 . She also submits that the delay in filing an FIR for sexual offences, even if it is not promptly acted upon, cannot give any benefit to the accused, if the delay is found to be natural. 13. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that when it had been proved that there is a tear in the hymen of the victim by a Medical Doctor, it is clear that there has been aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim. 14. She also submits that a conviction can be based solely on evidence of the prosecutrix and as the evidence on the victim has been supported/corroborated by the evidence of PW-3 and PW-7 (Doctor), the learned Trial Court could not have ignored the evidence of the victim. The learned Public Prosecutor also submits that there is no enmity between the family of the victim and the respondent No. 1, as can be seen from the explanation given by the respondent No. 1 in his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC. Further, no stand has been taken by the respondent No. 1 during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, with regard to there being any enmity between the parties. Thus, it cannot be said that a false allegation/implication has been made against the respondent No. 1 by the victim and the appellants. In this regard, she had relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of H.P. Vs Shree Kant Shekari reported in (2004) 8 SCC 153 . 15. The learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the evidence of the victim child cannot be discarded only on the ground of her tender age and it is only the requirement of the Court to rule out the possibility of the child being tutored. In this respect, she has relied upon the case of Maharashtra Vs. Bharat Fakira Dhiwar reported in (2002) 1 SCC 62. In this respect, she has relied upon the case of Maharashtra Vs. Bharat Fakira Dhiwar reported in (2002) 1 SCC 62. She submits that in view of the above facts, the learned Trial Court had committed a great injustice in acquitting the respondent No. 1 from the charge of Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. As such, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the Special Court, POCSO Act, Lunglei in Criminal Trial No. 333/2017 should be set aside and the respondent No. 1 should be convicted and sentenced under Section 6 of the POCSO, Act, 2012. 16. Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 1 submits that though the judicial statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.PC is to the effect that the respondent No. 1 had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim who was 5 years old, the evidence of the victim before the learned Trial Court does not show any penetrative sexual assault being committed on the victim. He accordingly submits that in terms of the testimony of the victim before the learned Trial Court, only Section 9 (m) of the POCSO Act, 2012 could be attracted to the facts of this case and punishment can be awarded only under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. He further submits that when looking at the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court, if two (2) views are possible, the view that is favourable to the accused should be accepted by the Court. In this respect, he relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs CBI reported in (2012) 1 SCC 41. 17. The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that the explanation of the respondent No. 1 during his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC clearly shows that the mother of the victim had left the residence of the respondent No. 1 last and locked the door. As such, there was no possibility of the respondent No. 1 having committed any offence on the victim in the house of the respondent No.1, during the presence of the mother of the victim. He accordingly submits that the impugned Judgment and Order should not be interfered with and that the appeal should be dismissed. 18. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 19. He accordingly submits that the impugned Judgment and Order should not be interfered with and that the appeal should be dismissed. 18. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 19. The judicial statement of the victim recorded on 05.07.2017 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lunglei is basically to the effect that the respondent No. 1 had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim. It is also stated in the judicial statement of the victim that the respondent No. 1 had used his hands to touch the private parts of the victim. 20. In the case of Amitava Banerjee @ Amit @ Bappa Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2011) 12 SCC 554 , the Supreme Court has held that the statement of the witness under Section 164 Cr.PC. does not constitute substantive evidence. However, as a conviction can be based entirely on the statement of a rape victim, as has been settled by the Supreme Court in several decisions, one of them being in the case of Vijay @ Chinee Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2010) 8 SCC 191 , the statement made by a prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.PC can also be used for convicting an appellant, if the same is consistent with the testimony given by the victim under oath during trial. 21. The above being said, what has to be seen is the evidence that is recorded during trial and in this respect, the evidence of the victim (PW-2) is to the effect that the respondent No. 1 had stroked the private parts of the victim with his private parts and also caressed and fondled the private parts of the victim. Though there is nothing in the evidence/testimony of the victim to show that any penetrative sexual assault had taken place between the respondent No. 1 and the victim, the same can be implied, keeping in view the tear in the victim’s hymen. 22. The evidence of the victim as recorded by the learned Trial Court is reproduced herein as follows: “ (the accused was sent out of the court room after being identified by the victim) I know the accused who is present in the court today. I went to the house of accused. He let me on the table and on his bed. He stroke on my private part with his private part. I went to the house of accused. He let me on the table and on his bed. He stroke on my private part with his private part. He also caressed and fondled my private part also. I saw his private part. XXX by D/L: 1. It is not a fact that I was tutored by my mother or anyone else to speak again the accused. 2. It is not a fact that the accused did not do any sexual act to me. 3. It is a fact that I am unable to collect the date of incident. 4. it is not a fact that I am deposing falsely.” 23. On considering the evidence given by the victim in her judicial statement given under Section 164 Cr.PC, it is apparent that there has been corroboration of the fact that the victim had not only been stroked on her private parts with the private parts of the respondent No. 1, besides being fondled by the respondent No. 1, the victim had also been raped as evident from the tear in her hymen. The word ‘stroke’ used by the learned Trial Court while referring to the touching of the private parts of the victim and the private parts of the respondent No. 1 clearly refers to the act of the private parts of the respondent No. 1 entering the private parts of the victim. The tear in the hymen of the victim is also corroborated by the evidence which points to the respondent No. 1 raping the minor girl. 24. The evidence of the Doctor (PW-7), is to the effect that the hymen of the victim was torn at 4 O’clock position and the tear appeared to be recent, although there was no bleeding at the time of examination. The victim complained of severe pain in the perianal region which was also tender to touch. PW-7 also stated that the victim told her that the respondent No. 1 made her lie down on the table and had taken off his pants and pushed his private parts against her genitalia. The victim on narrating the incident also clearly indicated by way of action what the respondent No. 1 had done to her. In his cross-examination, PW-7 also stated that the tear of the hymen may also have been caused by insertion of a finger. The victim on narrating the incident also clearly indicated by way of action what the respondent No. 1 had done to her. In his cross-examination, PW-7 also stated that the tear of the hymen may also have been caused by insertion of a finger. This extra-judicial confession in my view corroborates the evidence that the appellant had raped the victim. In the case of Sansar Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2010) 10 SCC 604 , the Supreme Court has held that there is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an extra-judicial confession should be corroborated by some other material. 25. On considering all the above, it is surprising that the learned Trial Court had made an observation that the demeanor of the victim at the time of examination by the Court was suspicious without coming to a finding as to whether the victim was tutored, when there was no whisper of enmity between the parents of the victim and the respondent No. 1. 26. It is further surprising to note the observation of the learned Trial Court that the demeanor of the victim’s mother appears spiteful. The said observation is neither here nor there. In any event, there is nothing to show that the evidence of the victim’s mother was inadmissible or not believable just because her demeanor was spiteful. 27. The evidence of PW-1, who is the mother of the victim and the informant, is to the effect that when she returned home, she found that the victim was not present. PW-1 accordingly sent the younger sister of the victim to enquire in the house of the respondent No. 1. Thereafter, the victim along with her younger sister and the respondent No. 1 came to the house of PW-1. In the evening, the victim reported that her backside was paining but she did not say anything else that day. The next evening, when PW-1 made enquiries, the victim again spoke of her pain in her back. After repeated questioning, the victim told PW-1 that the respondent No. 1 had assaulted her by taking off her underpants and showed her by acting, what the respondent No. 1 had done between the vagina and the anus of the victim, acting out a person doing a sexual act, due to which the victim felt pain. After repeated questioning, the victim told PW-1 that the respondent No. 1 had assaulted her by taking off her underpants and showed her by acting, what the respondent No. 1 had done between the vagina and the anus of the victim, acting out a person doing a sexual act, due to which the victim felt pain. On the next day, i.e. 05.07.2017, PW-1 along with her husband filed an FIR in the Lunglei Police Station. In her cross examination, PW-1 stated that she had known the respondent No. 1 for more than 7 to 10 years and that the father of the victim had known the respondent No. 1 even before PW-1 had married the father of the victim. 28. PW-3, who is the younger sister of the victim stated in her testimony that it was raining when she went to the house of the respondent No. 1 and she saw the victim taking off her underwear, with the respondent No. 1 beside her. She also saw the private parts of the respondent No. 1. In her cross examination, PW-3, who was 4 years old, denied the suggestion that she was tutored by her parents or that she did not see her sister taking off her underwear. She also denied the suggestion that she did not see the private parts of the respondent No. 1. 29. PW-4, who is the father of the victim, stated that he knew the respondent No. 1 as he was close to their family. At the time of incident, the respondent No. 1 was to live with their family, as invited by PW-4 and his wife. The incident was however told to him by his wife when he returned from work. PW-4 and his wife thereafter asked the victim what the respondent No. 1 had done to her. The victim thereafter demonstrated what the respondent No. 1 had done to her sexually. Thereafter, PW-1 had submitted an FIR. 30. The evidence of PW-4 is reproduced herein as follows: “ On S/A “I know the accused who is present in the court today. He is closely intimated to our family. At the time of the incident, he was about to live with our family as invited by me and my wife. The incident was reported to me by my wife when I returned from my work. He is closely intimated to our family. At the time of the incident, he was about to live with our family as invited by me and my wife. The incident was reported to me by my wife when I returned from my work. Thoroughly we sounded our daughter what the accused had done to him. She demonstrated that the accused had stroked her sexually. My wife submitted FIR as per my agreement. XX by D/L: 1. It is a fact that I do not have direct knowledge of the incident. 2. It is a fact that I am unable to collect the date of alleged incident. 3. It is not a fact that due to misunderstanding between my wife and the accused the report was falsely given to me. 4. It is not a fact that I am deposing falsely.” 31. The evidence of PW-5 is to the effect that he was a seizure witness to the seizure of the Birth Certificate of the victim by the Police. 32. The evidence of PW-6, is to the effect that he was a seizure witness, though he was not informed what article was seized. 33. The evidence of PW-7, who is the Doctor, is to the effect that on examining the victim, she found that there was no sign of any external injury. However, during examination of her genitalia, the hymen was found to be torn at 4 O’clock position. The tear appeared to be recent, although there was no bleeding at the time of examination. The victim complained of severe pain in the perianal region which was also tender to touch. PW-7 stated that the victim told PW-7 that the respondent No. 1 had made her lie down on the table and had taken off his pants and took out his penis and pushed it against her genitalia. The victim, while narrating the incident, also clearly indicated by way of action what the respondent No. 1 had done to her. In her cross-examination, PW-7 stated that she did not find any external laceration or bruising on the body of the victim. She also stated that she did not mention the age of the tenderness in the perianal region in her report. PW-7 also stated that the tear of the hymen may also have been caused by insertion of a finger. In her cross-examination, PW-7 stated that she did not find any external laceration or bruising on the body of the victim. She also stated that she did not mention the age of the tenderness in the perianal region in her report. PW-7 also stated that the tear of the hymen may also have been caused by insertion of a finger. PW-7 also denied the suggestion that the victim did not narrate the incident to her during examination. 34. The evidence of PW-8 (Doctor), is to the effect that he had received Police inquisition for medical examination of the respondent No. 1. However, as the incident had occurred two (2) days back and the respondent No. 1 had already taken a bath and changed his clothes, he did not find any external physical sign of injury on the body of the respondent No. 1. He also did not find any kind of injury in the genital area of the respondent No. 1. 35. The evidence of PW-9, who is the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lunglei, is to the effect that she had recorded the judicial statement of the victim on 05.07.2017 and that the victim did not appear to have been tutored. A perusal of the judicial statement of the victim recorded by PW-9, shows that the victim had been asked preliminary questions to find out as to whether the victim was able to give rational answers and understood the questions put to her. A perusal of the answers given by the victim to the questions asked by the Judicial Officer, shows that the victim understood the questions and could give rational answers to the same. 36. The evidence of PW-10, who is the case I.O, is to the effect that on 05.07.2017, a written FIR was submitted by PW-1 stating that her daughter aged 5 years, was sexually assaulted by the respondent No. 1. A case was registered and he was endorsed to carry out investigation. After examining the victim and other witnesses, besides visiting the place of occurrence, the respondent No. 1 was arrested. The respondent No. 1, however denied any involvement in the offence. PW-10 sent the victim for recording of her judicial statement and for medical examination. She also sent the respondent No. 1 for medical examination. After examining the victim and other witnesses, besides visiting the place of occurrence, the respondent No. 1 was arrested. The respondent No. 1, however denied any involvement in the offence. PW-10 sent the victim for recording of her judicial statement and for medical examination. She also sent the respondent No. 1 for medical examination. On finding a prima facie case under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the respondent No. 1, she filed the charge-sheet. 37. From the evidence of PW-2 (Victim), the respondent No. 1 had taken out his private parts and had stroked the private parts of the victim. The question that is to be seen is as to whether the word “stroked” should be taken literally, keeping in view the fact that the victim felt pain and there was tenderness in the perianal area. Further, the hymen of the victim had been torn at 4 O’clock position. 38. In the case of Bharat Farika Dhiwar (supra), the Supreme Court had referred to another of its Judgment i.e., Suryanaryana Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2001) 9 SCC 129 , where it was held that the evidence of a child witness cannot be discarded only on the ground of her being of tender age and held that the evidence of a child witness would require the Court to scrutinize the evidence with care and caution and that corroboration of the testimony of a child witness was not a rule, but a measure of caution and prudence. Further, some discrepancies in the statement of a child witness could not be made the basis for discarding her testimony. It also held that discrepancies in the deposition, if not in material particulars, would lend credence to the testimony of a child witness. It also held that while appreciating the evidence of a child witness, the Courts are required to rule out the possibility of the child being tutored. 39. In the case of Shree Kant Shekari (supra), the Supreme Court held that no girl of a tender age and her parents would like to jeopardize the minor girl’s entire future by falsely implicating a person alleging forcible sexual intercourse. As such, the stand taken by the accused in the above case, that he was falsely implicated because of a grudge, was not accepted by the Supreme Court on the ground that the said allegation was too shallow. 40. As such, the stand taken by the accused in the above case, that he was falsely implicated because of a grudge, was not accepted by the Supreme Court on the ground that the said allegation was too shallow. 40. In the case of Ganesan Vs. State reported in (2020) 10 SCC 573 , the Supreme Court has referred to various other decisions, wherein it had been held that there was no rule of law that the testimony of a prosecutrix cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. It has also been stated 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 corroboration, unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. It was also held that to test the quality of a sterling witness, what would be relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, besides the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand 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. It held that the version of the sterling witness should remain intact in relation to the core spectrum of the crime. 41. In the case of Gurmit Singh and Others (Supra) , the Supreme Court has held that the Courts cannot overlook the fact that the delay in lodging of an FIR in cases of sexual offences can be due to a variety of reasons, particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the Police and complain about the incident, which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family. It also held that minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. It also held that minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. On considering the fact that the victim was 5 years old at the time she was raped, which was corroborated by the medical examination report, which states that there was a tear in the hymen of the victim at 4 O’ clock position, we do not find any reason to hold that there was a prejudice caused to the appellant only because there was a delay in submitting an FIR by 2 (two) days. 42. With regard to the observation of the learned Trial Court that the complaint (informant) had stated that the victim did not narrate any incident on the alleged date of the incident except the pain in her back-side and that the victim narrated the alleged offence committed by the appellant only after repeated questioning, it would be profitable to refer to the decision of the Delhi High Court in Its Own Motion Vs. State, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10301, wherein it has been held that Courts have to be mindful that children sometimes do not disclose incidents of sexual abuse at one go, which could be in piece meal. 43. Paragraph Nos. 81 – 93 of the Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Its Own Motion Vs. State (supra) is reproduced herein below as follows:- “81. The dynamics of child sexual abuse are the same internationally. First and foremost, it is essential to understand the manner in which the children recount. Children do not disclose in one go but do so in piece meal. To accord the same treatment to a child as one would to an adult would result in grave injustice. 82. It needs no elaboration that the children would be reluctant and unlikely to disclose an entire adverse experience In proper detail in their first statement to the police, let alone the necessary details. To accord the same treatment to a child as one would to an adult would result in grave injustice. 82. It needs no elaboration that the children would be reluctant and unlikely to disclose an entire adverse experience In proper detail in their first statement to the police, let alone the necessary details. The fear for themselves or their family; an apprehension that they would be disbelieved; inability to identify themselves as victims; pressure or threats from the perpetrator; relationship to the perpetrator; fear of embarrassment, shame or self-blame; fear of stigmatization; lack of trust with the investigating agency amongst other would be some of the reasons which would act as barriers to a child making a disclosure of a complete incident in a single meeting. 83. There is great variation in how disclosure is defined and studied. Disclosure is rarely a spontaneous event and it is more likely to occur: · slowly over time as part of a process. For some it is a process that reoccurs and is never finished. Children and young people disclose abuse in many different ways · ranging from direct verbal statements to more subtle indirect methods. Some children will tell purposefully yet others will do so indirectly or only after being encouraged by others to talk Non-verbal disclosures are more common among young children and can come about through letter writing, role playing or drawing Bodily or physical signs of abuse can include stomach aches, encopresis · enuresis, adverse reactions to yoghurt or milk, or soreness in the genitals Emotional signs of abuse include fear, anxiety, sadness, acting out · without immediate cause, mood swings and reluctance to visit the perpetrator Behavioural signs can include sexualised playing with dolls, sexual · experimentation, excessive masturbation, or drawing sexual acts. However, such behaviours need to be considered in the context of individual, family and wider societal dynamics in which they occur Various models or stages of disclosure have been proposed including · staged, social exchange and social cognitive models. The models agree that disclosure is an interactive and dynamic process that is influenced by the way children conceptualise and make decisions about whom to tell and the reactions they might receive. 84. Children may disclose spontaneously (disclosure as an event) or indirectly and slowly (disclosure as a process). The models agree that disclosure is an interactive and dynamic process that is influenced by the way children conceptualise and make decisions about whom to tell and the reactions they might receive. 84. Children may disclose spontaneously (disclosure as an event) or indirectly and slowly (disclosure as a process). The child’s type of disclosure may be influenced by their developmental features, such as their age at the onset of abuse and/or their age at time of disclosure. For instance, younger children are more likely to spontaneously disclose than older children (Lippert, Cross, & Jones, 2009; London et al., 2005; Shackel, 2009). Understanding disclosure of abuse as a process may help adults to be patient and allow the child or young person to speak in their own way and their own time (Sorensen & Snow, 1991). It also helps adults maintain an awareness of any changes in behaviour or emotions that may indicate abuse is occurring or increasing. If you have suspicions that abuse is occurring, even if you are unsure, it is better to report your suspicions than to do nothing. 85. Some children and young people may disclose when asked or after participating in an intervention or education program (Shackel, 2009). Others may initially deny that they have been abused if asked directly, or say that they forget, only to disclose later. Children and young people may disclose, only to retract what they have said later; however, this is relatively uncommon. The child or young person might say he or she made a mistake, lied, or that the abuse actually happened to another child. In cases with a higher likelihood of actual abuse, recantations are low (4-9% London et al., 2005). However, the stress of disclosing and receiving potentially negative responses from caregivers may lead some children to recant in an attempt to alleviate the stress (Hershkowitz, Lanes, & Lamb, 2007). 86. A recent qualitative study of disclosure among 60 young men and women in the United Kingdom observed eight forms of disclosure: direct, indirect verbal, partial verbal, accidental direct/verbal, prompted, non- verbal/behavioural, retracted and assisted. Partial disclosures were characterised by minimisation of the abuse, disclosing abuse of another person or disclosing other forms of abuse such as physical assault. 86. A recent qualitative study of disclosure among 60 young men and women in the United Kingdom observed eight forms of disclosure: direct, indirect verbal, partial verbal, accidental direct/verbal, prompted, non- verbal/behavioural, retracted and assisted. Partial disclosures were characterised by minimisation of the abuse, disclosing abuse of another person or disclosing other forms of abuse such as physical assault. Prompted disclosures were made in response to a direct inquiry about abuse while assisted disclosures involved a young person disclosing to another young person with the help of a friend. The authors note that children use a variety of techniques to disclose including direct or ambiguous verbal statements and non-verbal disclosure in the form of writing letters, reenacting abuse type situations or drawing pictures for adults. Physical or bodily signs of child sexual abuse can include stomach aches, encopresis, enuresis, adverse reactions to yoghurt or milk (due to resemblance to semen), or soreness in the genitals (Jensen, 2005). Emotional signs can encompass fear, anxiety, and sadness, acting out without immediate cause, mood swings and reluctance to visit the perpetrator. Behavioural signs include sexualised playing with dolls, sexual experimentation, excessive drawing sexual acts (Finkelhor, 1994; Jensen, 2005). 87. Where children are concerned, the disclosure normally would tend to be a process, rather than a single incident or episode. It would take multiple interviews for an investigator or an interviewer to even establish trust in the mind of the child. Unfortunately, we have been unable to evolve any guidelines with regard to investigation and prosecution of cases of child sexual abuse which are the subject matter of POCSO Act, 2012, though the Central Government has suggested the following in the POCSO Model Guidelines: “The dynamics of child sexual abuse are such that often, children rarely disclose sexual abuse immediately after the event. Moreover, disclosure tends to be a process rather than a single episode and is often initiated following a physical complaint or a change in behaviour. In such a situation, when the child finally discloses abuse, and a report is filed under the POCSO Act, 2012 more information will have to be gathered so that the child's statement may be recorded. Information so obtained will become part of the evidence. However, given the experience that the child has gone through, he is likely to be mentally traumatised and possibly physically affected by the abuse. Information so obtained will become part of the evidence. However, given the experience that the child has gone through, he is likely to be mentally traumatised and possibly physically affected by the abuse. Very often, law enforcement officers interview children with adult interrogation techniques and without an understanding of child language or child development. This compromises the quality of evidence gathered from the child, and consequently, the quality of the investigation and trial that are based on this evidence. The interviewing of such a child to gather evidence thus demands an understanding of a range of topics, such as the process of disclosure and child-centred developmentally sensitive interviewing method, including language and concept formation. A child development expert may therefore have to be involved in the management of this process. The need for a professional with specialized training is identified because interviewing young children in the scope of an investigation is a skill that requires knowledge of child development, an understanding of the psychological impact sexual abuse has on children, and an understanding of police investigative procedures. Such a person must have knowledge of the dynamics and the consequences of child sexual abuse, an ability to establish rapport with children and adolescents, and a capacity to maintain objectivity in the assessment process. In the case of a child who disabled/physically handicapped prior to the abuse, the expert would also need to have specialised knowledge of working with children with that particular type of disability, e.g. visual impairment, etc.” 88. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Id. Senior Counsel and amicus curiae has also placed the “Guidelines on Prosecuting Cases of Child Sexual Abuse” issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Crown Prosecution Services, in October, 2013 which contains the following guidelines: “The statement taking stage 35. Particular care should be given when deciding how to take the victim's statement. A video recorded interview (and subsequent use of the live link in court) is often the most appropriate means but may not always be so. For example, if the abuse of the victim has been filmed and the victim does not want to be videoed as a consequence. XKX XXXXXX 38. A victim of child sexual abuse may not give their best and fullest account during their first recorded (ABE) interview or statement. For example, if the abuse of the victim has been filmed and the victim does not want to be videoed as a consequence. XKX XXXXXX 38. A victim of child sexual abuse may not give their best and fullest account during their first recorded (ABE) interview or statement. This may be for a variety of reasons: they could have been threatened; they might be fearful for themselves or their family; the offending may have been reported by others and they may be reluctant to cooperate at that stage. They might not have identified themselves as a victim or they could be fearful that the police will not believe their allegations. They may initially distrust the police and could well use the interview to test the credibility of the police. 39. The account given may take a number of interviews, with the child or young person giving their account piecemeal, sometimes saving the ‘worst’ till last, having satisfied themselves that they can trust the person to whom they are giving their account.” 89. There is no reason why the same practice cannot be followed in India. This leaves the question of how to interpret the multiple statements made by the witness/ victim. 90. In para 40 of the above guidelines, the Crown Prosecution Services (CPS), has taken the following view: “40. Carefully thought out patient intervention by the police and other agencies can ultimately disrupt and break the link to the offender(s). A seemingly contradictory initial account is therefore not a reason in itself to disbelieve subsequent accounts given by the victim and these contradictory accounts should instead be seen as at least potentially symptomatic of the abuse.” 91. The law allows the investigating agencies to record multiple statements of the victims. There is no prohibition on recording multiple statements by the police. 92. We may at this stage also advert to the provisions of Section 164 (5)(A) of the Cr. P.C. which mandates that the statement of a victim under Section 354, 354A-D, 376(1) and (2) as well as Section 376 A-E or Section 509 of the IPC shall be recorded as soon as the commission of the offence is brought to the notice of the police. 93. A seemingly contradictory initial account is not a reason in itself to disbelieve the subsequent accounts by the victims. 93. A seemingly contradictory initial account is not a reason in itself to disbelieve the subsequent accounts by the victims. The multiple statements placed by the investigating agency should be carefully scrutinized by the Trial Courts in order to ensure that complete justice is done.” 44. This Court on considering the observations of the Delhi High Court in the above noted paragraphs, is in respectful agreement with the observations made therein. A child cannot be expected to think and behave like an adult nor can they be expected to communicate as lucidly as an adult. Though there might be cases where a child can speak as lucidly as an adult and properly express the events that have happened, the narration of events by a child victim in bits and pieces cannot give rise to an inference that the statement of a child is wrong or that it was not believable, only because of the child not being able to give the entire version of events at one go. 45. In the present case, the observation made by the learned Trial Court that the demeanor of the victim and the parents of the victim appears to be suspicious and spiteful respectively cannot be an indication that the testimony of the victim and the parents was false. In fact, the learned Trial Court has not come to any finding that the testimony of the victim or the parents was false. The learned Trial Court was suspicious of the testimony of the victim and the parents of the victim only because of their demeanor. Imagine if evidence of witnesses were to be tested on the touchstone of their demeanor alone, without taking into account other factors such as the young age of a victim. 46. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs and keeping in mind the fact that a child victim may at times find it difficult to disclose the trauma suffered by them, which may require the entire events to unfold through multiple disclosures/ statements, the observations made by the learned Trial Court in coming to a cryptic finding that the guilt of the accused/respondent No. 1 was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, is patently wrong and not in consonance with the evidence adduced by the learned Trial Court. 47. 47. In view of the reasons stated above, we do not hesitate in holding that the charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 has been proven by the prosecution against the respondent No. 1 beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the impugned Judgment & Order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the Special Court, POCSO Act, Lunglei in Crl.Trl.No. 333/2017 arising out of Lunglei P.S. Case No. 96/2017 is hereby set aside. We find that the respondent No. 1 is guilty of having committed aggravated sexual assault on the victim girl, who was 5 years old and as such, has violated Section 5 (m) of the POCSO Act, 2012. Consequently, we convict the respondent No. 1 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The respondent No. 1 is accordingly sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only, in default of fine, Simple Imprisonment for 3 (three) months. This is due to the fact that the incident occurred on 03.07.2017, i.e. prior to the amendment of Section 6 of the POCSO Act, vide S.O. 2957(E) dated 16.08.2019, wherein the minimum punishment was enhanced to 20 years from 10 years. 48. Send back the LCR. 49. In appreciation of the assistance provided by Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned Amicus Curiae, his fee of Rs. 8,500/- should be paid by the Mizoram State Legal Services Authority.