The court affirmed that a victim's consistent testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient for conviction in sexual assault cases, despite minor inconsistencies.

JUDGMENT :

(P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.)

The accused in S.C.No.436 of 2010 on the files of the Sessions Court, Manjeri is the appellant. He was convicted as per the impugned judgment for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (IPC). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

2. The prosecution was initiated with the following allegations:

At about 10.00 p.m. on 08.09.2008 the accused committed rape on his daughter, PW1, aged 13 years at the house of his elder brother situated at Edapatta. He repeated committing rape on her at their house having door No.III/35 of Ponmala panchayat. It recurred till the last week of February 2009. Consequently, PW1 became pregnant and delivered a girl child at the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode on 03.05.2009.

3. On the appellant denying the charge, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and proved Exts.P1 toP14. MOs.1 to 4 were identified. When questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Code), the appellant denied the incriminating circumstances. He filed a statement setting out his defence. He stated that he was unaware about the pregnancy of the victim, even when she was taken to the Medical College Hospital. He alleged that Mujeeb, son of PW5 was responsible for the pregnancy of PW1 and in order to save him, the appellant was implicated by PW1 under the persuasion of her mother, PW5. No evidence exceptExt.D1, a contradiction in the former statement of PW1, was let in.

4. The trial court, after analysing the evidence in detail, concluded that PW1 was a reliable witness and her evidence coupled with the oral testimonies of PW4, the Doctor and PW5, the mother, proved the guilt of the appellant beyond doubt. The said finding and the reasons thereof are assailed in this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. PW1 is the victim. She was aged 13 years at the time of occurrence. The appellant is her father and PW5 is her mother. PW1 was residing along with her siblings, the appellant and her mother (PW5). Her brother, Mujeed was born to PW5 in her first marriage. In her second wedlock of PW5 with the appellant, PW1 and her younger sister were born. All of them were residing together at their house at Ponmala.

7. The first incident of rape occurred at the house of the appellant’s elder brother at Edapatta. Subsequently, on a few occasions she was subjected to sexual abuse by the appellant at their house at Ponmala. She has narrated about such incidents. The appellant took PW1 and her younger sister to the house of his elder brother, stating that his younger brother was coming home from abroad. On that day his elder brother was absent and his sister-in-law alone was there.

8. PW1 deposed that she and her sister slept in a room. After her sister went asleep, the appellant subjected her to sexual intercourse despite her residence. She deposed further that on subsequent occasions while they were at their house at Ponmala, she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant on a few occasions during Ramadan season.

9. PW1 got impregnated. On noticing her swollen abdomen, PW5 along with the appellant took PW1 to a Doctor at Ponmala who noticed her to be pregnant, and instructed to take her to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. After examination, PW4, a professor in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the Medical College, confirmed pregnancy. Age of the fetus was found to be above six months. Owing to her tender age, PW1 was retained in that hospital and a child was delivered by her.

10. PW5 deposed that she along with the appellant took PW1 on 09.03.2009 to the Doctor on noticing her abdominal distension. After confirmation of the pregnancy by the Doctor, PW1 told that the appellant was responsible. It is her further version that the appellant suggested to take PW1 to some hospitals an