Page No.# 1/25

GAHC030002382023

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Crl.A./22/2023

Sh F. Laltlankima

Hnahlan

Champhai District

Mizoram

VERSUS

The State of Mizoram and Another

Aizawl2:Sh Thangrozau

:::BEFORE:::

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

Advocate for the appellants : C. Tlanthianghlima,

Legal Aid Counsel

Advocate for the respondents : 1.Ms. Mary L. Khiangte,

Addl. P.P., Mizoram

2.Ms. Emily L. Chhangte,

Legal Aid Counsel.

Date on which judgment is reserved : 05.02.2026.

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 13.02.2026

Page No.# 2/25

Whether the pronouncement is of the : Yes.

operative part of the judgment ?

Whether the full judgment has been : No.

pronounced?

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

1)Heard Mr. C. Tlanthianghlima, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for

the appellant. Also heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent No. 1, as well as Ms. Emily L.

Chhangte, learned Legal Aid Counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2.

2)This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973, has been filed by the appellant, Sh. F. Laltlankima, impugning the

Judgment & Order dated 21.01.2022, passed by the Court of learned Judge,

Fast Track Special Court (Rape & POCSO Act, 2012), Champhai, in connection

with FTSC (CPI), POCSO No. 30/2021, corresponding to SC No. 12/2021 and

Criminal Trial No. 36 of 2021, arising out of Champhai P.S. Case No.

143/2020, whereby the present appellant was convicted under Section 10 of

the POCSO Act, 2012, and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment

of 5 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to payment of fine to

undergo Simple Imprisonment of another one (1) month.

Page No.# 3/25

3)Before we proceed to discuss the facts relevant for consideration of this

appeal, it is pertinent to mention that in the meanwhile, in the month of

January, 2026, the appellant has been released from jail after having

completed the term of sentence imposed on him.

4)The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are

that, on 30.12.2020, the uncle of the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the

Officer-in-Charge of Champhai Police Station, inter alia, alleging that, on the

afternoon of 12.10.2020, the daughter of his elder sibling, who was about 10

years of age at that point of time (hereinafter referred to as ‘X’ to protect the

identity of the victim girl) was taken by the present appellant to Hnahlan

Tourist Lodge and inside his vehicle, he touched her breasts and private parts.

It is further stated in the FIR that the first informant came to know about this

incident only on 29.12.2020.

5)On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of Champhai

Police Station registered Champhai P.S. Case No. 143/2020 under Section 6 of

the POCSO Act, 2012 and initiated the investigation. During the course of

investigation, the Investigation Officer had recorded the statements of the

complainant, victim girl as well as the witnesses. He also seized the Birth

Certificate of the victim girl and thereafter, arrested the appellant. The victim

Page No.# 4/25

girl, as well as the appellant were sent for medical examination. He also got

the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

6)After completion of the investigation, the Charge Sheet was laid against

the present appellant, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, the appellant

faced the Trial by engaging his own counsel. The Trial Court, after considering

the materials available on record as well as after hearing the prosecution side

as well as the defence side, framed charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act,

2012, against the appellant on 03.11.2021. When the said charge was read

over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty to the same and

claimed to be tried.

7)The prosecution side examined 6 (six) out of 8 (eight) listed prosecution

witnesses in the Charge Sheet to bring home the charge against the

appellant. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, during which he admitted that he took the victim

girl and her friends for a ride to the tourist lodge, however, he denied having

done anything to the victim girl, which would amount to sexual assault on her.

He, however, admitted that he stated to the victim ‘in hnute ka khawih phawt

loh chuan ka duhlo.’ He also stated that he will be submitting a written

Page No.# 5/25

defence statement. However, ultimately, by the Judgment which has been

impugned in this appeal, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the

appellant in the manner as described in the Paragraph No. 2 herein before.

8)Before considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

appellant as well as the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal

Aid Counsel, let us go through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses

which is available on record.

9)The PW-1, Sh. Thangrozaua, has stated that he has lodged the FIR on

the basis of statement narrated to him by his elder brother, Lallianruata. He

also deposed that a family meeting was convened to discussed the issue

wherein the victim had informed him about the incident where she was

sexually molested by the appellant. It is also deposed by PW-1 that the

appellant was heavily under the influence of alcohol on the date of the alleged

incident as informed to him by the villagers of Hnahlan. He exhibited the FIR

as Exhibit P5 and his signature thereon as Exhibit P5 A.

10)During his cross-examination, the PW-1 has deposed that the victim is

the daughter of his brother. He also deposed that he had not seen the

incident himself and there was no eye witness when the victim was sexually

assaulted by the appellant. He has answered in negative to the suggestions

Page No.# 6/25

put to him by the learned defence counsel to the effect that there was enmity

between the family of the victim girl and the family of the appellant.

11)The PW-2, the victim girl ‘X’ has deposed that in the month of October,

2020, she was playing in front of the house of Pu. Thanmanga with her

friends. Thereafter, she entered into the house for drinking water and saw the

appellant was lying in the long chair of the sitting room. She further deposed

that the appellant asked them to massage his hand and he gave Rs. 50/- in

return. The PW-2/victim girl has further deposed as follows:

“After that, we asked the Accused to take us for a ride but the

Accused said "in hnute ka khawih phawt loh chuan ka duhlo".

Without thinking about the intention of the Accused we offered

the breasts and the Accused touch our breasts. One of my

friends Au Tha-i asked me to volunteer myself before the

Accused to escape the touching of her breasts and then fill my

breasts with rags(gamchha) and offered myself to the Accused

however the Accused refused to touch it and said "puan dam

chung chuan ka khawih duhlo" and then the Accused touch my

breasts again after I removed the rags from my chest.”

12)The PW-2 further deposed that thereafter, the three of them went to a

Page No.# 7/25

hill along with the appellant. She deposed that she sat in the front seat while

her friends, Ramnunsangi and Lalthanzuali took the back seat of the vehicle.

Thereafter, the appellant took them towards the tourist lodge. She further

deposed that when they reached the tombstone of Johana, they stop and her

friends got out of the vehicle to pee. When she also tried to get out of the

vehicle, the appellant grab her hand and closed the window and thereafter, he

made her to sit on her lap and started touching her breasts under her clothes.

She also deposed that the appellant put her fingers inside her trousers and

touched her private parts. She further deposed that when the friends of the

victim were coming back towards the vehicle, the appellant pushed her back

to the front seat and said, “tumah hrilh suh, I hrilh chuan ka vaw hrep mai

ang che”. She deposed that she was afraid of crying, but, her eyes were filled

with tears. Thereafter, when they went towards the house of the appellant,

one of the relatives of the appellant saw them and thereafter, he told them to

come out of the vehicle and he went along with the appellant. The victim girl

has further deposed that as the appellant had threatened her not to tell

anyone, she did not inform her parents immediately out of fear of the

appellant.

13)During cross-examination by the defence counsel, the victim girl

Page No.# 8/25

deposed that she was studying in Class-IV at Presbyterian English Medium

School, Hnahlan and she was living with her father and her paternal grand-

parents. She also deposed that she have no relationship with Pu. Thanmanga,

where she massaged the fingers of the appellant. The victim girl also deposed

that an while they requested the appellant to tale them for a ride, the

appellant told them that they are too young and their breasts did not even

developed yet. She also agreed to the suggestions given by the defence

counsel that she replied to the appellant that “we have a grown breasts and

let him touch”. She has also deposed that she did not cry or scream for asking

help while the appellant committed sexual assault against her inside the car.

She also deposed that while returning home, she had laughter with jokes. She

has also deposed that she disclosed about the incident to her friends

Ramnunsangi and Lalthazuali at the residence of Au Tha-i on the date of

incident. She also deposed that she disclosed about the incident to her father

in presence of her family members before submitting of the FIR. She also

denied the suggestions that she along with her friends had requested the

appellant for a ride with him in his car. She also denied the suggestion that

she has falsely implicated the appellant at the behest of her family members.

During re-examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, she has

submitted that while returning back home, she had a laughter because her

Page No.# 9/25

friend Au Tha-i asked her to laugh as she was unaware about the incident

which happened with the victim girl.

14)The PW-5, Lalthazuali had deposed that she was with the victim girl and

Ramnunsangi on the day of the alleged incident. She also deposed that on the

date on the incident when they were playing in the front of the house of

Lalthazuali, they saw the appellant lying on a long chair in the sitting room,

he gave Rs. 50/- to them and let them massage his hand. She further

deposed that when they asked him to take them for a ride, he said “in hnute

ka khawih phawt loh chuan ka duhlo”. She deposed that she allowed the

appellant to touch her breasts with clothes on and thereafter, she went out

with the appellant in his car up to the hill to meet his labourers. She further

deposed that after they went towards tourist lodge, the appellant told them

“zun a hun e” and that they stepped out of the car to pee. She further

deposed that as they stepped out of the car, she saw Ramnunsangi who told

her that the victim ‘X’ was not coming out. She further deposed that she

(victim) was in the mood of crying but she consoled her not to worry about

anything. She also deposed that the car windows were closed and they had

knocked on the window to get inside the car again. During her cross-

examination, she has also deposed that she has not seen sexual assault

Page No.# 10/25

committed by the appellant. She has also deposed that she is unaware about

any threatening given by the appellant to the victim for not disclosing about

the incident. She was given a few other suggestions to which she answered in

negative.

15)The PW-6, Ramnunsangi also deposed similar to that of PW-5. She also

deposed that they got down to take a pee after being told by the appellant

that “zun a hun e”. However, the victim did not follow them. She has also

deposed that when after finishing peeing, they returned to the vehicle, they

saw the windows of the car were all closed. She further deposed that she

knocked the windows of the car and she could see the victim sitting on the

lap of the appellant. She has further deposed that she was a little bit worried

after knowing about the incident on way to home. During cross-examination,

the PW-6 has deposed that when they asked the appellant to take them for a

ride, the appellant told them that they are too young and their breasts are not

developed. She also admitted that the victim girl did not disclose about the

incident to her except the appellant touching the breasts of the victim girl on

the date of the incident.

16)The PW-7, Dr. Lalramengi, has deposed that she medically examined the

victim girl on 30.12.2020 at about 11:00 am. She deposed that while recalling

Page No.# 11/25

history of the incident, the victim informed her that the appellant touched her

breasts as well as her private parts. She also deposed that the hymen of the

victim girl was found intact at the time of medical examination. She has also

deposed that as there was a lapse of several days between the date of

incident as well as medical examination, marks of violence such as bruises,

laceration, scratches, if any were healed. She exhibited the medical

examination report as exhibit P6. During cross-examination by defence side,

she has deposed that the victim girl was about 10 years of age at the time of

medical examination. She also deposed that the breasts of the victim girl were

fully developed at the time of medical examination. She also deposed that the

victim did not state before her that the appellant inserted his fingers inside

her vagina.

17)The PW-8, Liansangpuii, S.I. of Police has deposed that she is the

Investigating Officer of this case and during investigation, she interrogated

the victim as well as other witnesses and found sufficient materials against

the appellant. She has deposed that the victim has stated about the incident

to her during investigation, she stated that on the date of alleged incident,

they went to the house of Pu. Thanmanga where they found the appellant

lying on a long chair. She also deposed that the appellant had asked the

Page No.# 12/25

victim to massage his hands and thereafter, he gave them money with which

they purchase snacks. She has deposed that when the vehicle in which the

appellant took the victim and her friends for a ride reached the tombstone of

Johana, the friends of the victim went out for peeing and during that time,

the appellant started to touch the breasts of the victim and poked his hands

in the private parts of the victim. However, he was unable to proceed any

further as the friends of the victim returned back and knocked the door of the

car. She further deposed that after returning home, the appellant took a sip of

liquor as narrated to her by the victim and the other witnesses. She exhibited

the charge sheet, the seizure memo, the Birth Certificate of the victim, the

statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.PC as well as statement of the

friends of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.PC.

18)The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C about

which we have already made discussion in Paragraph No. 7 of this Judgment

herein before. The appellant did not adduce any evidence in his defence.

19)Mr. C. Tlanthianghlima, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant

has submitted that the Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant by relying

on the prosecution story by ignoring the fact that there was considerable

delay in filing of the FIR by the uncle of the victim girl, however, the said

Page No.# 13/25

delay of more than 2 (two) months from the day of alleged incident has not

been properly explained by the informant or the victim girl.

20)He further submits that the finding of the guilt of the appellant was

based solely on the testimony of the victim girl and the said testimony was

not of sterling quality. He submits that even the friends of the victim girl who

accompanied her with the appellant did not witness the incident of the alleged

sexual assault by the appellant. He further submits that even the medical

examination report of the victim girl does not bring about any incriminating

material against the appellant and as such, the Trial Court had erred in relying

upon uncorroborated testimony of the victim girl to convict and sentence the

appellant.

21)The learned Legal Aid Counsel also submits that the testimony of the

victim girl during her cross-examination that she did not cry or screamed or

ask for help while the appellant was allegedly committing sexual assault upon

her inside the car leads to the only conclusion that the story narrated by the

victim girl is a false story and is not reliable. He also submits that the conduct

of the victim girl, post the alleged incident does not inspire confidence about

the truthfulness of the story narrated by her in as much as she has deposed

that while returning back from the place where alleged incident occurred, they

Page No.# 14/25

have laughter with jokes which clearly shows that the victim was not

subjected to any sexual assault by the appellant as alleged by her in her

testimony. He further submits that the victim girl is a child and therefore can

be easily tutored and in absence of any corroborative evidence, her testimony

ought not to have been relied upon by the Trial Court to come to the finding

of guilt of the appellant.

22)The learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant also submitted that

though the appellant was charged initially under Section 6 of the POCSO Act,

2012, however, he was convicted under Section 10 of the POCSO Act 2012,

without giving him an opportunity as mandated under Section 216 of the

Cr.P.C, 1973. He submits that the altered charge under Section 10 of the

POCSO Act, 2012, was never read over or explained to the appellant and as

such, he was taken by surprise when he was convicted and sentenced under

Section 10 of the POCSO Act. He submits that in view of the said procedural

lapse by the Trial Court, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the

appellant is liable to be set aside.

23)The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the victim girl

and both her friends were minor, however, before recording their deposition,

no preliminary examination was done by the Trial Court to ascertain as to

Page No.# 15/25

whether they were capable of giving rational answer to the questions put to

them by the learned counsel for both sides due to the reason of their tender

age. He submits that in absence of the preliminary examination of the victim

girl as well as her friends by the Trial Court before recording their testimony,

same remains untrustworthy and unreliable and based on such evidence, the

appellant ought not to have been convicted and sentenced. In support of his

submission, the learned Legal Aid Counsel has stated the following rulings:

(1) Pradeep Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2023) 19 SCC 221.

(2) Madhusudan and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported

in (2024) 15 SCC 757.

24)On the other hand, Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent has submitted that the Trial

Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act

after going through the evidence available on record. She submits that mere

delay in lodging of the FIR, in itself may not be a ground for discarding totally

the prosecution story. She submits that in the instant case, the victim girl was

aged about only 10 years and when she was subjected to such an ordeal by

an adult person of 32 years of age, it is quite natural that out of shock and

fear, she may not immediately disclose the incident to her parents and it may

Page No.# 16/25

take some time for her to get normal and thereafter, get courage to share her

ordeal with her relatives which have happened in this case.

25)The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that conviction can be

sustained even on the sole testimony of prosecutrix and no corroboration is

required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the Courts to

insist on corroboration. She submits that in the instant case, the victim was

sexually assaulted inside the vehicle when her friends were asked to get down

from the vehicle by the appellant on the pretext of allowing them to go for

urinating.

26)The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that both the minor friends

of the victim have deposed that when they came back, they found the doors

and windows of the car of the vehicle closed from inside and they had to

knock from outside. One of the friends of the victim i.e., PW-6 has also

deposed that she saw the victim was sitting on the lap of the appellant inside

the car and the doors of the vehicle were closed from inside. This

corroborates the testimony of the victim girl that she was subjected to sexual

assault by the appellant inside the car in absence of her friends.

27)She further submits that in case of minor victims, small discrepancies in

their testimony should not be a ground for totally discarding their testimony.

Page No.# 17/25

She submits that there are a catena of decisions of the Apex Court which lays

down that corroboration of the testimony of a prosecutrix in a rape case is not

a sine qua non. In support of her submissions, the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of State of

Himachal Pradesh vs. Manga Singh, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 759.

28)The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submits that the conviction

of the appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 instead of Section 6

of the POCSO Act has not caused any prejudice to the appellant inasmuch as

he was convicted for a lesser offence. She submits that the Section 6 of the

POCSO Act, 2012 provides penalty for the offence of aggravated penetrative

sexual assault, whereas, Section 10 of the POCSO Act provides for

punishment of aggravated sexual assault which is a lesser offence then that of

penetrative sexual assault and carries a lesser punishment. She submits that

the appellant has failed to demonstrate any prejudice by alteration of charges

by the Trial Court. She also submits that the Trial Court has the power to alter

charges at any time before pronouncement of Judgment. She submits that

said power includes power to alter or add charges even after completion of

evidence, argument and reserving of the Judgment. She submits that in

absence of a demonstrable prejudice to the appellant due to alteration of

Page No.# 18/25

charges from Section 6 to Section 10 of the POCSO Act, the Judgment of the

Trial Court may not be interfered with. She submits that the offence involved

in this case, is regarding subjecting a minor girl of 10 years of age to sexual

assault by an adult male of 32 years of age. Hence, no leniency should be

shown. She further prays for dismissing the instant appeal.

29)I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both

sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also

gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides.

30)Though, certain procedural lapses on the part of the Trial Court has

come to the notice of this Court, however, the said lapses do not go to the

root of the case and does not affect the prosecution’s case adversely. Hence,

same may not be a reason for interfering with the impugned Judgment.

However, this Court intends to bring to the notice the said procedural lapses.

31)Admittedly, the prosecution case is based mainly on the testimony of the

victim girl and two of her friends, all of whom were minor on the date of

alleged incident. Though, it is no longer res integra that a minor is a witness

competent to depose under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and that

no oath or affirmation is to be administered to a witness who is under the age

of 12 years, if he/she does not understand the nature of an oath and

Page No.# 19/25

affirmation. However, the absence of an oath or affirmation in itself shall not

render the evidence inadmissible. Proviso to Section 4 of the Oaths Act, 1969,

provides that when a witness is a child under 12 years of age, the Court or

person having authority to examine such a witness has to examine such a

witness to ascertain whether the witness understand the duty of speaking

truth and whether he/she understands or not the nature of oath and

affirmation.

32)In the instant case, no such preliminary examination of minor witnesses

was done by the Trial Court, which it ought to have done, however, from the

testimony of the victim girl and 2 (two) of her friends, all of whom were minor

on the date of alleged incident as well as on the date when they deposed

before the Trial Court, it appears that they were able to give rational answers

to the questions posed to them during their examination-in-chief. They were

also able to withstand the extensive cross-examination done by the learned

defence counsel.

33)On bare perusal of their testimony, it appears that though the victim girl

and her friends were minor on the date when they deposed before the Court,

however, they were able to rationally narrate the incident which occurred on

the date of the alleged offence and from their testimony, nowhere, it appears

Page No.# 20/25

that they were not speaking the truth. Hence, this Court is of the considered

opinion that merely because the preliminary examination was not done by the

Trial Court, the testimony of the victim girl and 2 (two) of her friends cannot

be discarded.

34)As regards the contention of the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the

appellant that the appellant was taken by surprise when he was convicted

under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, whereas the charge was framed against

him under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, let us look into the particulars of

offence which were explained to the appellant on 03.11.2021, when the

charge was read over and explained to him.

35)On perusal of the memorandum of charge prepared by the Trial Court

on 03.11.2021, it appears that following particulars of offence was read over

and explained to the appellant on that day:-

“On 12.10.2020 afternoon, you have committed penetrative sexual

assault on victim ‘X’ (10 years) by touching her breasts under her

garment and also poking your right hand middle and index finger inside

the vagina of the victim and thereby committed an offence punishable

under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, within the cognizance of this

Court and hereby directed to be tried under the aforesaid section of

Page No.# 21/25

laws.”

36)If we carefully peruse the aforesaid particulars of charge which was

read over and explained to the appellant, it appears that apart from the fact

that the appellant was accused of poking his middle and index fingers into the

vagina of the victim which constitute an offence under Section 6 of the

POCSO Act, the appellant was also accused of touching the breasts of the

victim under her garment which clearly constitute an offence under Section 10

of the POCSO Act. Hence, it appears that the appellant was aware about the

accusations made against him for which ultimately, he was found convicted.

37)The relevant provision in the Cr.P.C which deals with the effect of

omission to frame, or absence of, or error in charge is contained in Section

464 of the Cr.P.C, 1973, which is reproduced as follows:-

“464. Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in,

charge. — (1) No finding, sentence or order by a court of competent

jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge

was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the

charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless in the opinion of the

court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact

been occasioned thereby.

(2) If the court of appeal, confirmation or revision is of opinion that a

failure of justice has in fact been occasioned, it may—

(a) In the case of an omission to frame a charge, order that a charge be

framed and that the trial be recommended from the point immediately

after the framing of the charge;

(b) In the case of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge, direct a

new trial to be had upon a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks

fit:

Page No.# 22/25

Provided that if the court is of opinion that the facts of the case are such

that no valid charge could be preferred against the accused in respect of

the facts proved, it shall quash the conviction.”

38)A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that no finding,

sentence or order of the Court of a competent jurisdiction shall be deemed to

be invalid merely on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in

framing of charges or that no charge was framed unless the Court of appeal,

confirmation or revision is of the opinion that a failure of justice has be in fact

occasion thereby.

39)In the instant case, we have seen herein above that the Trial Court

while explaining the particulars of offence on 03.11.2021, as well as the

memorandum of charge framed on that day clearly gives a fair indication to

the appellant that apart from the accusation of poking his finger inside the

vagina of the victim, he was also accused of touching the breasts of the victim

under her garments which is sufficient to constitute an offence under Section

10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Moreover, the offence under Section 10 of the

POCSO Act, 2012 may be regarded as a minor offence when compared to the

offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, the Trial Court, in

the considered opinion of this Court has not committed any wrong in

convicting the appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, when the

prosecution side has been able to prove the ingredients of offence under

Page No.# 23/25

Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the appellant and when the

appellant was also aware about the accusations against him with regard to

the offence under the said Act. Mere non-mentioning of Section 10 of the

POCSO Act, 2012 in the memorandum of charge which was prepared by the

Trial Court on the date when the offence was explained to the appellant is not

fatal to the prosecution case, as apparently, this Court is of considered opinion

that the appellant has failed to show any demonstrable prejudice caused to

him due to his conviction under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, by the

Trial Court.

40)As regards the belated lodging of the FIR is concerned, it is apparent

that the victim girl was a minor girl of 10 years of age when she was

subjected to sexual assault by adult male of 32 years of age. The minor victim

may not be expected to conduct herself in the manner in which an adult

victim would have reacted under such circumstances. It is normal for such a

victim to undergo a phase of shock and fear for which she may not disclosed

the same to her parents. In the instant case, however, the victim girl had

disclosed the incident to her friends after the incident. Being minor, she

herself could not have lodged an FIR and as she has herself deposed that she

reported to her family members belatedly, hence, there was a delay in lodging

Page No.# 24/25

FIR.

41)In the instant case, mere delay in lodging of the FIR does not cast any

doubt on the veracity of the testimony of the minor victim in which she has

vividly explained the ordeal undergone by her on the date of alleged offence.

Apart from the victim girl who has categorically implicated the appellant of

subjecting her to sexual assault, one of her friend, namely, PW-6 has also

seen the victim girl sitting on the lap of the appellant inside the vehicle when

its door were closed which to some extent corroborates the testimony of the

victim girl.

42)Otherwise also, we have seen from the discussion made in the foregoing

paragraphs that the victim girl has vividly described the act of sexual assault

committed by the appellant on her on the date of alleged incident. He not

only committed the incident of sexual assault inside the vehicle, but he

touched the breasts of the victim girl even before going for a ride when they

were inside the house of Pu. Thanmanga, where the appellant was lying on a

chair. As the victim girl was subjected to sexual assault by the appellant when

her friends went for peeing and no one else was there in the vehicle, it was

rightful for the Trial Court to rely on the uncorroborated testimony of the

victim girl when there was nothing on record to disbelief her testimony. This

Page No.# 25/25

Court is also of the considered opinion that there was no reason for regarding

the testimony of the victim girl as untrustworthy or unreliable as no reason

could be shown by the appellant which might have prompted the minor victim

girl to make false accusation against him.

43)For the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs and reasons

stated therein, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the

impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by

the Trial Court.

44)This appeal is accordingly dismissed.

45)Send back the records of the Trial Court to the Trial Court along with a

copy of this Judgment.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant