Important points
" Conviction can be founded on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The evidence of a prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness. The testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable.
" Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances- The evidence of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness- Even minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the verdict passed by the Sessions Judge, Kollam in S.C. No. 86 of 2014 by which he was found guilty under Section 376 (2) (f) and (i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in default of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He was also found guilty under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity POCSO Act) but, the offence under S.376(2)(f) and (i) being of greater degree, no separate sentence is awarded for the same as per Section 42 of POCSO Act. It is also directed that the appellant/accused is not entitled to the benefit of set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused herein committed rape on his own daughter who was under the age of 16 years at the time of commission of offence from a period of 2010 to 2013 at their temporary shed situated at Charuvila Puthen Veedu, Punnakkad, Podiyattuvila Muri, Arakkal Village and as a result, the victim was impregnated and delivered a girl child.

3. Prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 11 and marked Exts.P1 to P13. MO1 is identified. During 313 examination, the appellant/accused denied all the incriminating evidence and pleaded that he is innocent. His wife eloped with another man. Thereafter he was not in a proper mental state. He also had undergone treatment for mental illness. He used to return late from work and during that period, his children were in the house of his neighbour Paulose. According to him, he had not done anything to his daughter. No defence evidence was adduced in the case.

4. Evidence adduced by the prosecution in the case, in brief, are as under:

PW-1 is the Doctor who examined the victim and issued Ext.P1 certificate. PW-2 is the victim who is the daughter of the appellant/accused. PW-3 is the neighbour staying adjacent to the place of occurrence. PW-4 is the Medical Officer who examined the appellant/accused and issued Ext.P4 certificate. PW-5 is the Headmaster through whom Ext.P5 extract of school admission register is marked. PW-6 is the Village Officer through whom Ext.P6 scene plan is brought in evidence. PW-7 recorded the additional statement of PW-2. PW-8 registered Ext.P7 FIR on the basis of Ext.P2 statement of PW-2 which he received along with the letter from Child Welfare Committee, Kollam. PW-9 is the C.I. of Police, Women Cell, who recorded Ext.P2 statement of the victim. PW-10 is the then C.I. of Police, Anchal. He took over the investigation and prepared Ext.P8 scene plan. He seized MO1 dress of the victim and forwarded it to Court through Ext.P9 property list. On 16.06.2013, PW-10 arrested the appellant/accused and Ext.P10 is the arrest memo and Ext.P11 is the inspection memo. Ext.P4 is the certificate obtained after potency test of the appellant/accused. Ext.P12 is the remand report. PW-11 is the successor of PW-10 and he altered the penal provisions included in the FIR through Ext.P13 report. He completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet.

5. Learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellant Sri. Sony Vincent contended that the case is a fabricated one and the appellant is innocent. He is falsely implicated in the crime. There is absolutely no evidence to connect the appellant with the grave allegation prosecution had raised against him, who is the father of the victim. No DNA test is conducted. Medical examination of the victim was conducted without obtaining the consent of the victim as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the rules thereunder. Prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim as below 16 years. Ext.P5 is inadmissible in evidence. The period