The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible witness testimony, medical evidence, and the consistency of the victim's account to establish guilt in cases of sexual assault against minors.

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. 1362 of 2016 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant is the sole accused in the case.

2. The accusation in the case is that on 19.09.2016, at about 6.00 am, while the victim boy aged 11 years was proceeding from his house to a tuition centre, the accused abducted him to a remote place and committed penetrative sexual assault and carnal intercourse against the order of nature on him by kissing him and also by passing his penis into the anus of the victim boy, and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC) and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the POCSO Act).

3. On the accused pleading not guilty of the charges, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses as PW1 to PW11 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 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, PW1 is the mother of the victim boy. She has proved Ext. P1 First Information Statement. PW2 is the victim boy. PW3 is the uncle of the victim boy, the brother of PW1. PW4 is the doctor who issued Ext. P2 potency certificate after examining the accused. PW5 is the person who brought back the victim boy to his house from the road near the place of occurrence where the boy was found standing after the occurrence. PW6 is the tuition teacher of the victim boy. PW7 is the attester to Ext. P3 scene mahazer. PW8 is the police officer who registered the First Information Report. PW9 is the police officer who conducted the investigation in the case. PW9 has proved Ext. P5 scene mahazer, Ext. P6 arrest memo, Ext. P7 inspection memo, Ext. P8 arrest intimation as also Ext. P9 report indicating the particulars of the accused. PW10 was the then Medical Superintendent of the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Chirayinkeezhu, where the medical examination of the victim boy was conducted on a reference from the police. Ext. P10 wound certificate was proved through PW10. PW11 is the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat concerned, who issued certified copy of the birth certificate of the victim boy.

5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the court below found that the prosecution has established beyond doubt that the accused has committed penetrative sexual assault and carnal intercourse against the order of nature on the victim boy and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 377 of the IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The accused was consequently convicted for the aforesaid offences and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 363 of the IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 377 of the IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The court also ordered that the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the accused will run concurrently. The accused is aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on him.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant