The competency of a witness and the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt are crucial legal principles established in this judgment.

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. 746 of 2016 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court (Additional), Palakkad. The appellant is the sole accused in the case.

2. The victim in the case is a lady aged 35 years suffering from metal retardation. The accused is none other than the father-in-law of one of the brothers of the victim lady. The accusation in the case is that on 23.04.2015, at about 13.00 hours, the accused raped the victim lady and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC).

3. On the accused pleading not guilty of the charges framed against him, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses as PW1 to PW19 and proved 13 documents as Exts. P1 to P13. 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 wife of the brother of the victim lady with whom the victim lady is residing. PW1 proved Ext. P1 First Information Statement. PW2 is the Counsellor attached to the District Hospital, Palakkad who has given counselling to the victim lady on a reference made by the police. PW3 is the victim lady herself. PW3 proved Ext. P2 statement given by her under Section 164 of the Code. PW4 is the sister of the victim lady. She proved Ext. P3 mahazar. As she turned hostile to the prosecution, Exts. P4 and P5 contradictions have been proved by the prosecution through her. PW5 is a brother of the victim lady. He proved Ext. P6 mahazar. PW6 is the sister of the victim lady. PW7 is another brother of the victim lady. PW8 is another brother of the victim lady. PW9 is a neighbour of the accused. PW10 is another neighbour of the accused. PW11 is the witness to Ext. P6 mahazar. PW12 is the Village official who issued Ext. P7 site plan. PW13 is the official of the local authority who issued Ext. P8 certificate pertaining to the ownership of the building of the accused. PW14 is the doctor who examined the victim lady and issued Ext. P9 report. PW15 is the police official who recorded Ext. P1 First Information Statement from PW1. PW16 is the police official who conducted part of the investigation in the case. PW16 proved Ext. P10 arrest memo, Ext. P10(a) inspection memo, Ext. P10(b) remand report, Ext. P11 potency certificate and Ext. P12 seizure mahazar. PW17 is the police official who conducted the remaining part of investigation. He proved Ext. P13 property list. PW18 is the police official who submitted the final report in the case. PW19 is the police official who registered the First Information Report in the case.

5. On an appraisal of the materials on record, the court below found that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(l) of the IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offences aforesaid. The appellant is aggrieved by his conviction and sentence.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the only evidence, on the basis of which the accused is convicted, is the evidence tendered by the victim lady. Referring to the evidence tendered by the victim lady as also the demeanor of the victim lady recorded by the court below in the proceedings, it was argued by the learned counsel that the victim lady can never be const