IMPORTANT POINT
It is the duty of the court to examine the broader probabilities of a case and should not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. It is also held that the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case.

JUDGMENT :

M.R.Anitha, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence in S.C.654/2014 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam (For the Trial of Cases relating to Atrocities and Sexual Assault Against Women and Children) Act.

2. Prosecution case can be summarized as follows :

Accused is the father of the victim girl aged 11 years. When the victim was studying in 1st standard, from 2009 onwards the accused had been committing aggravated sexual assault in the bed room situated on the north western corner of house No.XI/196 of Koovapadi Grama Panchayath at Aimury Kara by holding on her breast and forcing her to hold his penis repeatedly. It is further alleged that from 8.9.2013 upto 9.8.2014 on several days, accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the victim girl in the room situated on the south western corner of House No.VI/495 of Koovapadi Grama Panchayath near Pisharikkal temple. He further threatened the victim girl with death if his actions are disclosed to anybody and thereby accused committed the offence punishable under Sec.376 (2)(f)(i)(n) of IPC, Sec.5(1)(m)(n) r/w 6 and Sec.9(1) (m) (n) r/w 10 and of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (hereinafter be referred as POCSO Act) and S.506 IPC.

3. Crime was registered on recording Ext.P1 FIS of the victim by PW1, the woman Police Officer attached to Kodanad Police Station. The FIR came to be registered based on the information given by PW10 who was the Doctor attached to Pranavam Counselling Centre, Kothamangalam, to which the victim was taken for counselling. Based on Ext.P1 FIS, PW12 the then Sub Inspector of Police attached to Kodanad Police Station, registered the Crime and Ext.P10 is the FIR. Thereafter PW13 the Circle Inspector, Perumbavoor took charge of the investigation of the case and prepared the scene mahazar, Exts.P3 and P4, of the two houses where the incidents are alleged to have taken place. The victim was got examined through PW7, Junior Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynecologist, General Hospital, Moovattupuzha. PW8 is the Doctor who examined the accused and issued Ext.P8 potency certificate with respect to the accused. PW13 further questioned the witnesses and collected the documents. PW9 the Village Officer prepared the site plan of two houses and the room where the incident took place. It is marked as Ext.P9. PW6 is the Landlord of the house at Aimury Kara where the accused and family along with victim were residing near the Pisharikkal Temple. PW14 is the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat who issued the birth certificate, Ext.P17 pertaining to the victim to prove that her date of birth is 23.12.2002. Thereafter PW13 completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused.

4. Prosecution examined PW1 to 14 and Exts.P1 to P17 were marked. After the closure of prosecution evidence, accused was questioned under Sec.313(1) Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating facts and circumstances put to him and filed a detailed statement in addition. Ext.D1 was marked from his side during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. There was no further evidence adduced from the side of the accused. Thereafter on hearing both sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant/accused guilty under Sec.376 (2)(f)(i)(n) of IPC, Sec.5(1)(m)(n) r/w Sec.6 and 9 (l)(m)(n) r/w 10 of POCSO Act.

5. Assailing the conviction and sentence appellant came up in appeal. Notice was issued to the respondent. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Smt. Ambika Devi appeared on behalf of the respondent. Lower Court Records were called for and perused. Heard both sides.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused (hereinafter be referred as accused) assailed the conviction and sentence on various grounds. According to him, the prosecution case and the Court charge has no connection with each other. Prosecution case states about the incident which took place from the first standard onwa