IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JOBIN SEBASTIAN, JJ.
CHRISTOPHER S/O JOSE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl. Appeal Nos. 527, 626, 674, 752 of 2020
Decided On : 13-11-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 366, 366A, 376(2)(n), 376D - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(l), 6, 5(g) - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Conviction of accused for gang rape of a minor girl set aside due to serious doubts on the survivor's credibility and significant investigative flaws. (Paras 40, 41)
(B) Evidence - Testimony of survivor - Must inspire confidence and be corroborated by reliable evidence; inconsistencies and lack of supporting evidence led to the conclusion that the prosecution case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 25, 28, 39)
JUDGMENT :
1. These appeals have been preferred by the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in S.C. No. 22 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (For the Trial of Cases relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children), Ernakulam. They were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 366 r/w. Section 34, 366A, 376(2)(n), 376D of the IPC and Section 5(l) r/w. Section 6, 5(g) r/w. Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
2. By the impugned judgment:
(A) the accused Nos. 1 to 4 were found guilty for the offence under Section 376D of the IPC and Section 6 r/w. Section 5(g) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each with a default clause. No separate sentence was ordered under the POCSO Act.
(B) the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found guilty and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 366 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC with a default clause.
(C) Accused No. 2 was found guilty and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs10,000/- under Section 366A of the IPC with a default clause.
(D) Accused No. 1 was found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Summary of the Prosecution Case:
3. The survivor is a minor girl aged 16 years. The 1st accused had a brief affair with her for a period of about 6 months and thereafter, they parted ways when she understood that he was having other relationships. The prosecution alleges that the accused hatched a conspiracy to abduct the survivor and to rape her. On 13.10.2018, at about 9 p.m. the 1st accused called the survivor on her mother’s phone and informed the survivor that he was leaving for Bangalore the next day and expressed his desire to meet her. She was taken by the 2nd accused in his bike bearing Reg. No. KL-07-Temp-2626 to Fort Kochi Beach Walkway and to the breakwater nearby The accused Nos. 1 to 4, who were present there, forced her to drink beer from a bottle and to smoke a cigarette. She became unconscious immediately thereafter. It is alleged that while she was not in a conscious state, the accused subjected her to penetrative sexual assault by the side of a concrete barrier near the breakwater. Thereafter, she was taken to a multi-storeyed building by name “Jewel Arcade” situated at Layam Road, Ernakulam, and was again subjected to penetrative sexual abuse by laying her on the floor of the corridor on the 2nd floor of the building. After taking her to various places, She was finally dropped at a place called Manacherry from where she reached her home at 9.00 a.m. on 14/10/2018. On the next day, she called Childline and divulged the incident. They intimated the police and set the law in motion.
Registration of the Crime and the Investigation:
4. Based on Ext.P1 information furnished by the survivor at 12.30 p.m. on 16.10.2018, at her residence, Ext.P20 FIR was registered at 3.40 p.m. On 17.10.2018, PW23, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, took over the investigation. He seized the clothes worn by the survivor as per Ext.P17 Mahazar and the same was forwarded to the court. The clothes were then forwarded to the Forensic Science Lab. Thereafter, he prepared Ext.P2 mahazar of the spot from where the survivor was picked up by the 2nd accused. Thereafter, he prepared Ext.P18 Mahazar identifying the place at the breakwater behind the Cochin Club where the survivor was taken initially and she was allegedly forced to drink the beer. A2 to A4 were arrested on 17.10.2018 and they were produced before court. A1 was arrested on 20.10.2018. After getting the police custody of the ac
C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana
Pappu v. State of U.P. (2022) 10 SCC 321
Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi)
State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain
Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer
Surajit Sarkar v. State of West Bengal
State of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh
State of Orissa v. Thakara Besra
AI
The conviction for gang rape was overturned due to significant doubts regarding the survivor's credibility and serious investigative flaws, emphasizing the need for reliable evidence in sexual assaul....
Onus of prosecution cannot be discharged by referring to very strong suspicion and existence of highly suspicious facts to inculpate accused nor falsity of defence could take place of proof which pro....
Point of Law – Kidnapping and abduction – Conviction - victim, who is found to be an unreliable witness - appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt
The conviction of a defendant for sexual offences against a minor can be upheld based on the credible testimony of the victim even in the presence of minor inconsistencies in her statements.
The prosecution evidence must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the unreliability of the victim's testimony requires corroboration from independent evidence in cases of sexual offences.
The testimony of a child victim under the POCSO Act, if credible, does not require corroboration for conviction, and minor discrepancies should not undermine a reliable prosecution case.
The testimony of the victim, classified as a sterling witness, suffices for conviction under sexual offense laws, emphasizing reliability over corroboration unless compelling evidence undermines her ....
The judgment reinforces the presumption of guilt in sexual offences against minors under the POCSO Act, emphasizing the importance of corroborated testimony and medical evidence.
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.