DNA evidence is reliable and can corroborate victim testimony, even with inconsistencies, particularly in cases involving vulnerable victims.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

The sole accused in S.C.No.268 of 2019 on the files of the Court of Session, Kottayam Division, is the appellant in the appeal. He stands convicted and sentenced for having committed rape and penetrative sexual assault on his mentally retarded minor child.

2. The accused in the case is the biological father of the victim. The mother of the victim passed away during the early childhood of the victim. Thereafter, the victim was residing with the accused. Although the victim has an elder brother, he was not staying with them. During October 2018, when the victim was taken to the hospital due to a fever, the doctor after examining her found that she was pregnant. Accordingly, the matter was informed to the police. The statement of the victim was recorded thereupon on 03.10.2018 by a Women Police Officer attached to Velloor Police Station, Kottayam and a case was registered based on the said statement. In the statement, even though it is alleged by the victim that one Anil had sexual intercourse with her forcibly at a place near a stream where she had gone to wash clothes, the investigation conducted in the case revealed that two persons had committed rape on her including the accused. Though a single final report was initially filed in the case against the accused and one Gireesh, later, the charges were split and two separate final reports were filed, one against the accused and the other against Gireesh. The accusation in the final report against the accused is that he had committed rape and penetrative sexual assault on the victim one day in July 2018, at their house.

3. The Court of Session framed charges against the accused under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(k), 376(2)(l) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) and Sections 5(j)(ii), 5(k), 5(n) and 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The accused pleaded not guilty. The evidence let in by the prosecution thereupon consists of the oral evidence of 18 witnesses examined as PWs 1 to 18 and Exts.P1 to P19 documents proved through them. Exts.D1 and D2 are the previous statements of the witnesses proved at the instance of the accused. MO1 series are the material objects identified by the witnesses. Thereupon, after complying with the procedure prescribed, the Court of Session found the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(k) and 376(2)(l) IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii), 5(k) and 5(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, convicted him and sentenced him among others, to undergo, imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the accused. The accused was acquitted of the remaining charges. The accused is deeply aggrieved by his conviction and sentence in the case, hence this appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The point that falls for consideration is whether the conviction of the appellant and the sentence passed against him, are sustainable in law.

6. Point. The victim gave evidence in the proceedings as PW1. It was deposed by PW1 that sometime during 2018, while she was studying for the Plus One course, the accused committed rape on her. It was also deposed by PW1 that later, the accused took her to the residence of his friend, Gireesh and that they stayed in his house for about 15 days and during the said period, Gireesh also committed rape on her. It was deposed by PW1 that due to a fever, she was taken to a hospital in Piravom by her father, where the doctors informed her that she was pregnant and that subsequently, she was taken to Vaikom hospital, where the doctors confirmed the pregnancy. According