IMPORTANT POINT
The testimony of a sexual assault victim is credible and can support conviction despite minor discrepancies; absence of physical injuries does not negate the reliability of the victim's account.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

The instant appeal is preferred challenging the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Sessions, Kottayam, in S.C.No. 133 of 2019 on the files of the said court. In the above case, the appellant was accused of committing maternal incest and he was charged under Section 376(2)(f) & (n) of the IPC. By the impugned judgment, he was found guilty and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offences charged.

2. According to the prosecution, the survivor, who is the mother of the appellant, had three sons. The appellant was residing with his mother in house bearing No. 125 in Ward No.VIII of Vazhappally Grama Panchayat. As per the charge, on 29.08.2018, at about 9.30 p.m., the appellant committed rape on PW1 on multiple occasions till the dawn on the next day.

3. On 06.09.2018 at 1.55 p.m., PW1 went to the Changanassery Police Station to lodge the statement. However, on reaching the Police Station, she collapsed and was therefore rushed to the Government General Hospital, Changanassery. While in the casualty, Ext.P1 statement of PW1 was recorded by PW11, the Senior Women Police Officer, and based on the same Ext.P12 FIR in Crime No.1958 of 2018 was registered under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(n) of the IPC. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by PW13, the Circle Inspector of Police, Changanassery Police Station. On 06.09.2018, the appellant was arrested as per Ext.P13 arrest memo. Measures were taken by the medical professional to conduct the examination of the survivor as well as the accused. Samples of body fluids were forwarded to the Forensic Science Lab. The 164 Statement of the victim was recorded and after completing the investigation, the final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate, Changanassery.

4. Committal proceedings were initiated by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the law, and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The case was finally made over to the Additional Sessions Judge -IV, Kottayam for trial and disposal. After hearing the prosecution and the accused, charges were framed under Section 376(2)(f) and (n) of the Indian Penal Code. When the same was read over, the accused pleaded not guilty and prayed that he be tried in accordance with the law.

5. To prove the case of the prosecution, 14 witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 14 and through them, Exts.P1 to P7 were exhibited and marked. MO1 Kavimundu worn by the accused at the time of the commission of the offence was produced and identified. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating materials arising from the evidence were put to the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He maintained that he was innocent. No evidence was adduced on the side of the defence.

6. The learned Sessions Judge, relied on the evidence of PW1, the survivor, PW3 (the daughter-in-law) to whom the commission of the dastardly act was disclosed by the mother and PW6, the Doctor who examined the survivor and prepared Ext.P5 certificate, and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established that the mother was subjected to repeated instances of rape. The finding of guilt, conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is under challenge in this appeal.

7. Smt. Resmi Nandanan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge had seriously erred in relying upon the evidence of PW1 (Survivor) to arrive at the finding of guilt. She would point out that there is a long and undue delay in setting the law in motion. While the incident had taken place on 29.08.2018, the FIS was furnished only on 06.09.2018. It is urged that on the next day, PW1 furnished Ext.P4 164 Statement before the learned Magistrate. She would urge that the version given by the witness before the Court was at variance and numerous omissions, as well as contradictions, were