Back
2020 Supreme(Ker) 1039
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.
Sasi - Appellants
Vs.
State of Kerala - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 213 of 2018
Decided On : 03-06-2020
For the Appellant : Paul Jacob, Suzanne Kurian, Amal Amir Ali, Rony Jose, George A. Cherian and Leo Lukose, Advs.
For the Respondents: Ambika Devi S., Spl. GP and Ramesh Chand, PP
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the victim's testimony to be of sterling quality and to have a natural and consistent correlation with other supporting materials. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence, especially in cases involving serious allegations such as rape and sexual assault.
Headnote:
POCSO Act - Conviction under Sections 450 and 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act - [POCSO Act] - [Sections 450, 376 of IPC, Section 6 of POCSO Act] - The court found that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, but not under Section 450 of the IPC. The medical evidence did not corroborate the victim's testimony, leading to the conclusion that the accused was liable to be punished under Section 511 read with Section 376(1) of the IPC. The court altered the conviction and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 450 and 376. The victim, a 13-year-old girl, accused the appellant of rape and penetrative sexual assault on two occasions. The prosecution presented evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports, to support the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, but not under Section 450 of the IPC. The medical evidence did not corroborate the victim's testimony, leading to the conclusion that the accused was liable to be punished under Section 511 read with Section 376(1) of the IPC. The court altered the conviction and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.
Issues: The key issues included the establishment of guilt under the relevant sections of the IPC and the POCSO Act, the credibility of the victim's testimony, and the corroboration of evidence, including medical reports.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the victim's testimony to be of sterling quality and to have a natural and consistent correlation with other supporting materials. It highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence, especially in cases involving serious allegations such as rape and sexual assault.
Final Decision: The court altered the conviction and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.
JUDGMENT :
P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.
1. 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 PW 1 to PW 14 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, PW 1 is the victim girl. PW 1 has proved Ext. P1, first Information Statement. PW 2 is the son of the younger sister of the mother of the victim girl. PW 3 is the doctor who examined the victim girl and issued Ext. P2 report. PW 4 is the Sub Inspector of Police who recorded the statement of the victim girl. PW 5 is the Village Official who prepared Exts. P3 and P3(a) scene plans. PW 6 is the Police Official who registered Ext. P1(a) First Information Report. PW 7 is the witness to Exts. P4 and P5 scene mahazars. PW 8 is the mother of PW 2. PW 9 is the teacher of the school where PW 2 was pursuing his studies. PW 10 is the Chairman of the Child Welfare Committee, Idukki, before whom Exts. P6 and P7 statements of the victim girl were taken. PW 11 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. PW 12 is the police official who conducted a part of the investigation and submitted the final report in the matter. PW 12 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. PW 13 is the doctor who examined the victim girl before registration of the crime and issued Ext. P18 wound certificate. PW 13 has also proved Ext. P17 potency certificate. PW 14 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
