JUDGMENT :

This appeal has been preferred under Sections 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused in S.C. No. 726/2014 on the file of the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kollam (for short, the court below) challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 6th October, 2017.

2. The accused faced trial for the offence punishable under Section 9(n) r/w 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, POCSO Act).

3. The victim was a minor girl aged 15 years at the time of the incident. The accused is none other than the father of the victim. The prosecution case in short is that during the year 2006 and on 30.05.2014 at about 11 p.m., and also on 02.06.2014 at 2 a.m. in the night, the accused sexually assaulted the victim at their house at Pathanapuram.

4. The crime was registered on the basis of Ext. P1 statement given by the victim to the Sub Inspector of Police, Pathanapuram. After completing the investigation, the final report was filed at the Court below.

5. The accused appeared at the Court below. After hearing both sides, the court below framed charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 9(n) r/w 10 of the POCSO Act. The charge was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and marked Exts. P1 to P7. No defence evidence was adduced. Considering the evidence on record, the court below found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 9(n) of POCSO Act and he was convicted for the said offence. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months under Section 10 of POCSO Act. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred.

6. I have heard Sri. Sujithkumar T.U., the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Bindu O.V., the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant impeached the findings of the Court below on appreciation of evidence and resultant finding as to the guilt. The counsel submitted that the conviction is based on the uncorroborated testimony of the child witness which suffers from contradictions and omissions. The counsel further submitted that there is inordinate delay in reporting the matter and lodging the FIR, the benefit of which should go to the accused. The counsel also submitted that the age of the victim has not been legally proved. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor, Smt. Bindu O.V. supported the findings and verdict handed down by the court below and argued that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing and proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.

8. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 to prove the incident and to fix the culpability on the accused. PW1 is the victim who gave Ext. P1 statement and PW2 is her mother.

9. PW1, the victim girl, deposed that even at the age of 7 years, the accused sexually abused her by making her to lie on his body and he also touched her private parts. PW1 further deposed that thereafter, he went to Gulf and after returning from Gulf, he regularly sexually assaulted her by catching her breast, buttocks and private parts at night. She narrated an incident, that on 30.05.2014, when the accused came to sexually assault her at night, she cried aloud, her mother woke up and together they made him to go out of the house and closed the door. She further deposed that, again on 02.06.2014 at about 2 a.m. while she was asleep, the accused caught her breast, buttocks and private parts and she cried aloud. She also deposed that the accused made a hole in the bathroom to see her taking bath. Hence, the victim along with PW2 went to the police station, gave Ext. P1 statement and lodged the complaint.

10. PW2, the mother of the victim gave evidence that, the accused is her husband and after their marriage, the accused disturbed her eld