JUDGMENT :

[Vinod Chandran, J.]

1. A person in the position of a guardian, ravished a minor girl of 9 years of age, when her biological mother was absent from the house, is the allegation of the prosecution. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses, produced 6 material objects and marked 19 documents. The accused was found guilty of the offences charged; under S.376(2)(f), rigorous imprisonment of 7 years was imposed with a fine of Rs.3 lakhs, a further imprisonment of 7 years with a fine of Rs.1 lakh under S.376(2)(i), imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1 lakh under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, with no separate sentence under S.5(m) & (n) read with S.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act [for brevity, 'SC/ST Atrocities Act'] in view of S.42 of that Act. The accused was also imposed with default sentences in the event of failure to pay fine.

2. Smt.Sai Pooja, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that the entire prosecution case is unbelievable and in that circumstance the sole testimony of the victim requires corroboration. There is no evidence as to who took her from the convent in which she was a resident. The minor child also was not recovered from the custody of the accused. The testimony of the witnesses do not tally and the Investigating Officer [I.O] has a case, contrary to that projected by the prosecution witnesses. The FIS by the 9 year old clearly indicates tutoring and the statements having been elicited by a process of intelligent questioning with active prompting by those who were present. The entire prosecution story is unbelievable and the accused has to be given the benefit of doubt. As far as the conviction under the SC/ST Atrocities Act, the provision as it existed then required the offence to be committed, on the ground that the victim is a member of an SC or ST community; whereas after the amendment of 2016 mere knowledge that the victim belongs to an SC community would be sufficient for attracting the offence. The learned Counsel relies on Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Paradesh [AIR 2021 SC 2190]. It is pointed out that the accused was not named in the Medical Certificate issued by the Doctor, who examined the victim; wherein the history was stated. It is also argued that Ext.P17 is not the extract of the admission register, nor can it be said to be a valid secondary evidence admissible in trial.

3. Smt.S.Ambikadevi, learned Special Government Pleader [Atrocities against Women and Children and Welfare of Women and Children], points out that a minor girl of 9 years of age was ravished by the person who was in the status of her father. The sexual act committed on her is clearly stated by the victim and she alleges that the accused committed it. There is nothing to indicate any animosity between the victim and the accused, so as to make such an allegation. Even the testimony regarding assault by the accused on the mother of the victim is not so serious as to incite a child to make the wild accusation, of a sexual act of the abject depravity, as complained of here. The evidence of the child victim read with Ext.P17 Certificate clearly demonstrates the age of the victim as below 18 years. The Certificate produced regarding age though does not attest it to be the School of first admission, the child victim categorically stated that she studied in the said School from the 1st Standard to the 4th Standard. Reliance is placed on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana [2013 (3) KLT Suppl.14 (SC)]. The testimony of the child victim can be accepted and so is it corroborated by the other witnesses. The child was taken out from a convent, where she was residing and studying, when her mother was absent from the house and ravished by the accused. The victim, her mother and the other siblings were residing with the accused who had the status of a guardian. In fact the child victim herself deposed that her mother wanted the