Back
2020 Supreme(Ker) 1030
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.
Pradeep P.P. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Kerala - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 1200 of 2019
Decided On : 07-07-2020
For the Appellant : C. Anilkumar (Kallesseril), C.Y. Vinod Kumar and P.M. Manash, Advs.
For the Respondents: Ramesh Chand, Public Prosecutor
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the credibility of the victim's testimony in cases of sexual assault against minors, and the court's acceptance of the sensitive nature of reporting such crimes.
Headnote:
Sexual Assault - Conviction under IPC 376(2)(i) and POCSO Act 5(m), 6, 9(m), 10 - The court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Section 5(m) read with Section 6 and Section 9(m) read with Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the POCSO Act) and convicted him for the said offences.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for sexually assaulting a 6-year-old girl by sucking her vagina and biting her belly with sexual intent. The prosecution presented evidence from witnesses and medical reports to support the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence presented by the victim girl to be credible, reliable, and truthful. The court also noted that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues included the delay in registering the First Information Report, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and contradictions in the victim girl's statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court disregarded minor inconsistencies and contradictions in witness testimonies, emphasizing the credibility of the victim girl's evidence. The court also accepted the explanation for the delay in registering the First Information Report, considering the sensitive nature of the crime.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the accused's conviction and sentence were upheld.
JUDGMENT :
P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.
1. The sole accused in S.C. No. 723 of 2017 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam is the appellant in this appeal, which is preferred challenging his conviction and the sentence in the said case.
2. The accusation in the case is that on 13.05.2017 at about 14 hours, the accused sucked the vagina and bite the belly of the victim girl aged 6 years with sexual intent after removing her dress and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC) and Section 5(m) read with Section 6 and also Section 9(m) read with Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (the POCSO Act).
3. On the accused pleading not guilty of the charges, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as PW1 to PW12 and proved 11 documents as Exts.P1 to P11. 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 consider 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 thereupon examined a witness on his side as DW1.
4. Among the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution, PW1 is the victim girl herself. PW2 is the father of the victim girl. PW2 has proved Ext.P1 First Information Statement and Ext.P2 copy of the rent agreement in respect of his house. PW3 is the mother of the victim girl. PW4 is the doctor who examined the accused and issued Ext.P3 potency certificate. PW5 is the doctor who examined the victim girl and issued Ext.P4 report of medical examination. PW6 is the brother of PW2 who is a witness to Ext.P5 scene Mahazar. PW7 is the Registrar of Births and Deaths who issued Ext.P6 birth certificate of the victim girl. PW8 is the Village Official who issued Ext.P7 site plan. PW9 is the Judicial Magistrate who recorded Ext.P8 statement of the victim girl under Section 164 of the Code. PW10 is the police official who recorded the statement of the victim girl. PW11 is the police official who registered Ext.P9 First Information Report. PW12 is the Investigating Officer in the case. PW12 has proved Ext.P10 arrest memo, Ext.P10(a) inspection memo, Ext.P10(b) custody memo and Ext.P11 report.
5. DW1 examined on the side of the defence is a person who is residing in the neighbourhood of the house of the victim girl.
6. On an appraisal of the materials on record, the court below found that the accused is guilty of the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Section 5(m) read with Section 6 and Section 9(m) read with Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the POCSO Act) and convicted him for the said offences and sentenced 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 one year for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC. Similarly, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 of the Act. Separate sentence was not awarded to the accused for the offence punishable under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act in the light of Section 42 of the said statute. The court also ordered the substantive sentences imposed on the accused to run concurrently. The accused is aggrieved by his conviction and sentence.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Public Prosecutor.
8. As noted, going by the prosecution case, the occurrence is one that took place on 13.05.2017 at about 14 hours and the place of occurrence is the house of the victim girl. Ext.P9 First Informati
