Important points:
The test applied in cases involving circumstantial evidence, viz, that there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence. To put it differently, the version of such witnesses on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary, and material objects should match the said version in material particulars.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant and the sentence imposed on him in S.C.No.557 of 2014 on the files of the Special Court for trial of offences punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the POCSO Act), Thodupuzha.

2. The appellant is the sole accused in the case. The victim in the case is a girl aged 13 yeas. The accusation in the case is that on 03.02.2013, at about 9.30 pm, the accused who is the partner of the younger sister of the mother of the victim girl, has trespassed into the house of the grandmother of the victim girl where the victim girl was residing at the relevant time, committed rape and penetrative sexual assault on her and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It is also the accusation in the case that later, on 04.02.2013, at about 9 am, the accused dragged the victim girl to the portion of the very same house where he was residing and committed rape and penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl again. The offences alleged were, therefore, the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

3. On the accused pleading not guilty of the charges levelled against him, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses as PW1 to PW14 and proved 19 documents as Exts.P1 to P19. The accused was, thereupon, questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) as regards the incriminating evidence brought out by the prosecution. The accused denied the same and maintained that he is innocent. Since the trial court did not find the case to be one fit for acquittal under Section 232 of the Code, the accused was called upon to enter on his defence. The accused did not adduce any evidence.

4. Among the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution, PW1 is the victim girl. PW1 has proved Ext.P1, first Information Statement. PW2 is the son of the younger sister of the mother of the victim girl. PW3 is the doctor who examined the victim girl and issued Ext.P2 report. PW4 is the Sub Inspector of Police who recorded the statement of the victim girl. PW5 is the Village Official who prepared Exts.P3 and P3(a) scene plans. PW6 is the Police Official who registered Ext.P1(a) First Information Report. PW7 is the witness to Exts.P4 and P5 scene mahazars. PW8 is the mother of PW2. PW9 is the teacher of the school where PW2 was pursuing his studies. PW10 is the Chairman of the Child Welfare Committee, Idukki, before whom Exts.P6 and P7 statements of the victim girl were taken. PW11 is the official of the local authority who issued Ext.P8 ownership certificate in respect of the house of the grandmother of the victim girl. PW12 is the police official who conducted a part of the investigation and submitted the final report in the matter. PW12 has proved Ext.P10 seizure mahazar, Ext.P11 seizure mahazar, Ext.P12 property list, Ext.P13 forwarding note, Ext.P14 arrest memo, Ext.P15 arrest report, Ext.P16 report for adding additional section and Ext.P19 chemical analysis report. PW13 is the doctor who examined the victim girl before registration of the crime and issued Ext.P18 wound certificate. PW13 has also proved Ext.P17 potency certificate. PW14 is the relative of the victim girl with whom the victim girl was residing for some time.

5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the court below found that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and convicted him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The court, however, found that the prosecution has not made out the offence punishable under Section 450 of the IPC. The accused is aggrieved by the con