JUDGMENT

The sole accused in SC No.260/2020 on the files of the Special Court for the trial of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’ for short), Pathanamthitta, assails judgment dated 02.11.2023 in the above case, whereby he was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 10 r/w.9(l) and 6 r/w. 5(l) of the POCSO Act as well as under Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘JJ Act’ for short) and sentenced as under:—

“In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for another 6 months for the offence U/s.10 r/w. 9(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only), in default of payment of fine he shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for another 12 months for the offence U/s.6 r/w. 5(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine he shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for another 6 months for the offence U/s.77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. The accused is not found guilty of the offence Under sec.377 of the Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted U/s.235(1) of the Cr.P.C. for the said offence. Set off is allowed to the accused from 13.02.2020 to 26.05.2020, U/s. 428 of the Cr.P.C., as against the substantive sentences, which shall run concurrently.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the trial court.

3. The prosecution case is that at about 7 pm on 26.01.2020, the accused had given liquor and ganja beedi to smoke to the victim, who was examined as PW1, a boy aged 14 ½ years, at the shop room owned by the accused at Kallanmodi in Mezhuveli Panchayat. Thereafter, he was subjected to aggravated sexual assault twice on that day. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 4 r/w. 3(d), 7 r/w. 8 and 6 r/w. 5(l) of the POCSO Act, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) and Section 77 of the JJ Act by the accused.

4. The learned Special Judge recorded evidence after framing charge for the said offences. During trial, PW1 to PW9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P15 were marked on the side of the prosecution. No defence evidence was adduced. Thereafter, he was convicted and sentenced, as extracted above.

5. While assailing the judgment, the learned counsel for the accused argued that, in this case, the victim is a boy having bad habits and the people in the locality had given complaint at the police station and on this premise, the accused was implicated in this case without any reason. According to her, the prosecution evidence is quite insufficient to find commission of offences found by the Special Court. That apart, the accused is a person aged 61 years and therefore, leniency is to be shown to him.

6. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor strongly supported the prosecution allegations, relying on the evidence of victim (PW1), supported by other evidence, on the submission that, apart from raising a defence that the case has been foisted, no specific defence was suggested during cross-examination of PW1. It is also submitted that regarding the filing of complaint as argued by the learned counsel for the accused that no evidence forthcoming. In such view of the matter, the prosecution case is well proved and the verdict impugned would not require any interference.

7. Having considered the rival submissions,