IMPORTANT POINT
A conviction for sexual assault can rely solely on the victim's testimony if credible, without needing corroboration unless compelling reasons exist.

.JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, J

This appeal is filed by the sole accused in SC No.170/2017, challenging his conviction under Sections 452 , 376(2)(f),(n)&(i) and 506(ii) of IPC and Sections 5(l)&(n) r/w Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act' for short) and sentence imposed under the afore IPC provisions by the Special Court for trial of offences under POCSO Act and Children’s Court, Kalpetta.

2. The prosecution case is that on 5/3/2017 at about 10.15 pm, the accused, who is a close relative of the victim (PW2) aged 15 years, criminally trespassed into her house situated in Oorukandy Paniya Colony and took her to a shed nearby and committed rape/aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her. Thereafter, on 15/3/2017 at about 12 am, inside the house of the accused situated in Mundavara, the accused after threatening and intimidating her, again committed rape/aggravated sexual assault upon her.

3. In the trial court, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW16 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P24 documents and MO1 and MO2 were marked. On examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence and contended that he is innocent. From the side of the accused, no evidence was adduced. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty and convicted him under Sections 452 , 376(2)(f),(n)&(i)and Section 506(ii) of IPC and Sections 5(l)& (n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 452 IPC and in default, to undergo RI for six months. The accused was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the remainder of his natural life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(f) of IPC . In case of each default, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. The accused was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 506 (ii) IPC . In case of default, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. No separate sentence was awarded for the offences under the POCSO Act and the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

4. While challenging the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant Adv. Tarin Rajendran contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, even if they are accepted in toto as gospel truth, will not establish the guilt of the accused. He argued that the testimony of PW2 is shaky and the trial court has, even without looking for corroboration, relied upon it and has convicted the accused. He contended that the medical and scientific evidence adduced in this case only supports the contention of the accused that he is not involved in the crime. He argued that the prosecution did not even examine the ladies, to whom the victim first confided about the incident and thereby, has suppressed material evidence. He further submitted that the sentence imposed by the trial court is highly excessive.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor Adv.Neema.T.V supported the impugned judgment and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with it. She, by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in State of H.P. v. Asha Ram [(2005) 13 SCC 766] contended that, a conviction can be founded solely upon the testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence and there is no need to look for corroboration in the absence of compelling circumstances. According to her, PW2 is a sterling witness and the trial court was fully justified in relying upon her evidence to convict the accused. She further, by relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Prad