Gauhati High Court - Aizawl
Sh F. Laltlankima vs The State Of Mizoram And Another on 13 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/25
2026:GAU-MZ:65
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
2026:GAU-MZ:65
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 2026:GAU-MZ:65
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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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 2026:GAU-MZ:65 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