The court upheld the conviction for rape under IPC, emphasizing that a reliable witness's testimony can suffice for conviction, despite procedural irregularities.

JUDGMENT :

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.190/2015 on the files of Additional Sessions Court for the trial of cases relating to Atrocities and Sexual Offences against Women and Children, Thiruvananthapuram, have filed Criminal Appeal No.416/2019 and Criminal Appeal No.1161/2018 respectively challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by that court under Section 3 76(2)(i) IPC , and Section 3 r/w. Section 4 and Section 6 r/w. Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act' for short) upon the 1st accused and under Section 376(2)(i) IPC upon the 2nd accused.

Prosecution case

2. The 1st accused, who is none other than the father of the victim aged 11 years, committed rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her several times, while staying in their house at Uliyazhthura village. It is alleged that the 2nd accused, who is a coconut plucker, had also committed rape and penetrative sexual assault on the victim at a rubber plantation situated nearby. The events came to light when the child disclosed the matter to the sisters of the Karunalayam where she was staying. Hence, the prosecution alleges that the accused have committed the offences punishable under 376 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5(l)(m)(n), 6, 9(n) & 10 of theProtection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Proceedings before the trial court

3. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined PW1 to PW12 and marked Exhibits P1 to P19 documents. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in evidence and contended that they were innocent. Even though the accused were granted an opportunity to adduce evidence, no evidence was adduced from their side. The trial court, on an evaluation of the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, found the 1st accused guilty of committing offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC and convicted him thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC . In case of default, he was ordered to undergo R.I. for one year. He was further found guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act and was convicted thereunder, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. In case of default, he was ordered to undergo S.I. for six months. The 2nd accused was also found guilty and convicted under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In case of default, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. But, the 2nd accused was found not guilty under Sections 6 & 10 of the POCSO Act. No separate sentence was imposed for the offences under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act upon the 1st accused. The fine amount, if realised, was ordered to be paid as compensation to the victim under Sections 357 (1)(b) Cr.P.C.

Prosecution evidence

4. PW1 is a victim in this case. She stated that she had given Ext.P1 FIS to the police from the Child Welfare Committee Office at Poojappura. Her date of birth is 5/6/2003 and when she gave the statement, she was studying in V Standard in GSS, Ayiroorpara. While she was studying in IV Standard, her father who is a carpenter had left her mother. While she was residing with her parents, her father used to take