Conviction for sexual assault requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; the testimony of child witnesses must be carefully evaluated for reliability and corroboration is prudent but not mandatory.

JUDGMENT :

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J

1. Committing rape on his own daughter by a person is the most abominable and heinous crime which shall be condemned and dealt without any mercy. But, conviction of a person accused of such crime shall be recorded only on sufficient proof. However great the suspicion against the accused and however strong the moral belief of the Court, unless commission of the offence by the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he shall not be convicted.

2. Very recently, in Raghavan v. State of Kerala (2021 SCC OnLine Kerala 4134), a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to observe that false allegation against an accused of committing rape on his daughter is lethal to his life even if he is eventually acquitted. The present case is another example.

3. The appellant is the sole accused in the case S.C.No.99/2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kottayam.

4. The prosecution case is that, the accused, the father of the victim girl, repeatedly committed penetrative sexual assault and rape on her, on many days during the period from 29.08.2012 to 03.03.2013.

5. According to the prosecution, the victim girl was aged seven years, when she became a prey to her father. She was studying in Class II at that time. Her mother was no more. She was being nursed and looked after by the accused. PW4 was her class teacher. She saw the child being very gloomy in the class. As per the instruction given by the Headmaster, she asked the child what was the matter but the child did not reveal anything. Subsequently, the members of the Childline came to the school and talked with the child. Then the child revealed the acts of sexual assault committed on her by her father and the matter was reported to the police.

6. PW10, Sub Inspector of Women Cell, Kottayam went to the school on 05.03.2013 and recorded Ext.P1 statement of the victim girl. On the basis of that statement, PW19 Sub Inspector registered Ext.P8 F.I.R. PW20 Circle Inspector conducted the investigation of the case. After completing the investigation, he filed final report against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the POCSO Act').

7. The trial court framed charge against the accused only for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried.

8. The prosecution examined the witnesses PW1 to PW20 and marked Exts.P1 to P11 documents and MO1 to MO3 material objects. No evidence was adduced by the accused.

9. The trial court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act and convicted him thereunder. The trial court awarded him a common sentence for both offences, of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine of Rs.50,000/-and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

10. Conviction entered against and the sentence imposed on him by the trial court are challenged in this appeal filed by the accused from the jail.

11. Heard Adv.Smt.S.Santhy, learned counsel for the appellant (State Brief) and the learned public prosecutor. Perused the records.

Specific Acts of Sexual Assault

12. Before discussing the evidence, it is to be noted that the specific allegations made against the accused in the charge framed against him by the trial court are (1) that he committed rape on his daughter, who was aged seven years, on several occasions during the period from 29.08.2012 to 03.03.2013 and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 376(2) (f) of the Indian Penal Code and (2) that he inserted his penis into her