IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
Shaju@Shaju, S/o. Viswambharan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.A No. 160 of 2019
Decided on : 01-09-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14, 21, 39-A – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 377, 376, 506(1), 376(2)(f)&(i) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 7 , 8, . 42, 5(l)&(n), 6, – Evidence Act, 1872 – Appeal - Offence of Rape – Equality before Law – Punishment for criminal intimidation - Commission of aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Appellant is accused, who stood trial in which prosecution led evidence through 17 witnesses marked 18 documents and produced 5 material objects - If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it should look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in case of an accomplice' (Para 15).
Finding of the Court :
There was a State Brief appointed and he has cross-examined crucial witnesses PW1 to PW3 & PW5, and could discredit PW3. PW1 & PW2 proved upto it, in cross- examination, which is not due to any errors committed by Counsel, but only by reason of their perceptive testimonies – There is neither any counsel error, discernible or a demonstrable prejudice, argued – On contrary evidence led in instant case, unequivocally establish crime, having been committed by accused, beyond all reasonable doubt –Finding that there is no proof of date of birth, conviction under POCSO Act will have to be set aside and so would conviction under S.376(2)(i) be set aside.
Results: Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Vinod Chandran, J.
The charge in the above case is of the father of a minor girl having repeatedly committed rape on her, at times against the order of nature, threatened the girl with dire consequences if it was revealed. In addition to the offence under Sections 376 & 377 of the IPC, commission of aggravated penetrative sexual assault, under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act') was also charged. The appellant is the accused, who stood trial in which the prosecution led evidence through 17 witnesses marked 18 documents and produced 5 material objects. The appellant stood convicted under Ss.376, 377 and 506(1) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under 376(2)(f)&(i) of IPC which is for the remainder of his natural life and a fine of Rs.1 lakh. Under S.377 IPC the appellant was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of Rs.50000/-. A further RI for six months under S.506 of IPC was also imposed. The appellant was also sentenced to RI for three years and a fine of Rs.25,000/-under S.7 r/w S.8 POCSO Act. Appropriate default sentences were ordered and S. 42 of the POCSO Act was reckoned, to not impose a separate sentence under S.5(l)&(n) r/w S.6 of the POCSO Act.
2. Sri. Ranjith Marar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant takes us through the charges which speaks of a particular instance on 26.07.2015 and before that for a continuous period of two years, which by itself is vague. It is pointed out from the decisions of this Court in Rajan v. State of Kerala (2021) 4 KLT 274, Alex v. State of Kerala 2021 (4) KLT 480 & Raghavan v. State of Kerala 2021 (6) KLT 427 that there is no proof of date of birth and in such circumstance there cannot be any conviction under S. 376(i) and the various provisions under the POCSO Act. It is also pointed out that there is no voir dire carried out of the minor child and hence the testimony has to be approached with caution. It is also pointed out that there are glaring contradictions in the testimony of PW1 and PW2, about the affairs of their household. While PW1 speaks of her parents having an amicable relationship, PW2 says that the relationship was strained and there were marital discords. Reading the entire testimony, it is pointed out that very clearly there was no effective defence offered and the accused was defended by a State Brief. It is pointed out that the omissions from the FIS were not put to the victim nor were the contradictions from the S.161 statement put to the witnesses. There is inadequate legal assistance; for the State Brief having not effectively defended the accused. PW4, the teacher does not speak of a like incident with respect to another girl, who became pregnant; which is offered as an explanation for the delay, by the victim. Last but not the least it is pointed out that on conviction both under 376(2)(f)&(i) only one sentence of life was imposed and in that circumstance when the charge under one of the two clauses is found to be not maintainable, then there should be mitigation insofar as the sentence is concerned. The learned Counsel would rely on a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and one of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) of the United Kingdom to canvass the argument of ineffective legal assistance to defend and the caution to be exercised in evaluating the testimony of the prosecutrix in a rape case, respectively.
3. Smt.O.V Bindu the learned Public Prosecutor argues for upholding the impugned judgment. PW1's testimony is of a sterling quality and PW2 and PW4 corroborates her on the aspects they were privy to. The modus operandi adopted by the father was to send out the mother on some errand, confirm that she has proceeded far and then molest the minor girl. PW1 specifically speaks of her father telephoning her mother to ensure that she is on her way, to then molest the child, which fact was corroborated by PW2, the mother. The medical
Alex v. State of Kerala 2021 (4) KLT 480
Bashira v. State of U.P AIR 1968 SC 1313
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217
Chandran v. State Of Kerala 1983 KLT 315
Gopalan Achari v. State of Kerala 1981 KLT 448
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary (1980) 1 SCC 98
Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 263
Janardan Reddy v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1951 SC 217
Ranchod Mathur Wasawa v. State of Gujarat 1974 3 SCC 581
Rajan v. State of Kerala (2021) 4 KLT 274
Raghavan v. State of Kerala 2021 (6) KLT 427
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chotey Lal (2011) 2 SCC 550
STRICKLAND v. WASHINGTON [466 US 668(1984)] [MANU/USSC/0112/1984]
Point of law: Indigence should never be a ground for denying fair trial or equal justice.
Point of Law : Hon'ble Supreme Court held that action of the accused in stripping prosecutrixes and himself and rubbing his genitals against those of the victims was indeed an endeavour to commit sex....
Point of law: Offence of Rape – Conviction upheld – Sentence modified – Non compliance of mandatory provisions under S.313 is an error committed by the trial court and it has to be corrected and rect....
The court affirmed that the victim's consistent testimony suffices for conviction in sexual assault cases, reinforcing that age determination and credibility of the witness are pivotal in such judgme....
The conviction for sexual assault can be based solely on the victim's credible testimony, and the POCSO Act mandates minimum sentences for such offences against minors.
In sexual offenses against minors, the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient for conviction if deemed credible, even in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Testimony of a child victim, if found consistent and credible, outweighs contradictory medical evidence even in the absence of physical injury. A reasonable explanation for the delay in filing a comp....
The Court reaffirmed that a child's testimony in sexual assault cases holds substantial weight, especially when corroborated by medical evidence and other witness accounts.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.