The importance of corroboration in the absence of compelling reasons, the significance of prompt FIR, and the impact of material omissions, inconsistencies, and improbabilities in the victim's testimony on the reliability of the prosecution's case.

P. Somarajan, J.

1. Appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed under Sections 376 and 506 (1) IPC against the appellant in Sessions Case No. 219/2011, dated 20.12.2013, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam.

2. The allegation is that a minor girl aged 13 years (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) had been subjected to rape, sexual molestation and criminal intimidation by her own father, the accused, within their dwelling house at Kumbalangi Village. She had made a partial revelation before her mother, PW2, that her father pressed on her chest during night time. Subsequently, the entire incident was disclosed by her to her teacher. Her mother was summoned by the teacher and thereon laid Exhibit P1 FIS, based on which registered Exhibit P1(a) FIR, on the allegation of Section 354 and 506(1) IPC. Later on offence under Section 376 IPC was added by deleting the offence under Section 354 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, on consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution through PW1 to PW14, Exhibits P1 to P17 and MOs 1 and 2 and also the evidence adduced by the appellant through DW1 to DW4 and Exhibit D1 and after hearing both the parties, found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506(1) IPC and convicted him thereunder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 376 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 506(1) IPC with a direction to release an amount of Rs.20,000/- to PW1 under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C., by its impugned judgment dated 20.12.2013.

3. PW1 is the victim girl aged only 13 years as on the date of commission of offence. The learned Sessions Judge had given much reliance on the evidence of the prosecutrix. The shocking incident revealed through PW1 had happened at her tender age of 13 and the aggressor is none else her own father (biological father), betraying the concept of trust and guardianship of father, prima facie appears to be against the consciousness, requires strict scrutiny when resting on the sole deposition of the prosecutrix. The settled principle is that the oral testimony of a prosecutrix, especially a minor prosecutrix, stands on a high pedestal, and it can be relied on and acted upon if it inspires confidence, not tainted by any ill-will, tutoring or ill thought. The principle behind it is that there may not be other independent witnesses to the commission of either rape or sexual molestation which normally happens in secrecy. The oral testimony of the prosecutrix can be accepted even without corroboration unless there are compelling circumstances.

4. The sequence of incident narrated by the prosecutrix is that her father started sexual molestation while she was sleeping in her house along with her mother and younger brother. They used to sleep in the house in one room on the floor over a country mat. On one occasion about six months back, while she was under deep sleep, her father sexually assaulted her by pressing on her chest. He used to insert his fingers on her private part after lowering her underwear (sheddy). It was resisted by the victim at the initial stage, but subsequently he proceeded further by committing rape on her during night time. She was not in a position to disclose the same to her mother as her father threatened her with evil consequences. The said version given by the victim has its own inconsistencies and improbabilities which are writ large on its face on the grounds that: (1) She did not disclose the alleged act of her father till she was manhandled by him on account of her alleged visit to the