The court affirmed the conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, emphasizing the credibility of the victim's testimony and the sufficiency of evidence despite procedural lapses.

JUDGMENT

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

We are confronted in this appeal with a tragic case involving the repeated violation of a daughter’s innocence by the very man meant to protect her. It is a tale not just of abuse, but of betrayal. The victim's harrowing story of abuse, as corroborated by oral and medical evidence, was found trustworthy by the learned Sessions Judge and the father was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376(2), (f), (i), (n) of the IPC and Section 6 r/w. Section 5 (l), (m), (n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity ‘POCSO Act’) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, with a default clause. The Court also ordered compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, and the victim was directed to approach the Legal Services Authority. By this appeal, the appellant impugns the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge on various grounds.

Brief Statement of Facts:

2. PW1, an 11-year-old child, the daughter of the appellant, was allegedly subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault by the appellant on 06.10.2014 and 07.10.2014, at their residence, bearing building No. 15/486 of the Marakkara Grama Panchayat. The case portrayed by the prosecution is that the mother of the child, who was examined as PW2, had to undergo a scan and was not at home on 06.10.2014 and 07.10.2014. PW12, the wife of the appellant’s brother, and the father of the appellant, along with the victim, were at home. On 06.10.2014 and 07.10.2014, the appellant took the child to the bedroom and inserted his finger into the vagina. When the child writhed with pain, the appellant is alleged to have licked her buttocks. It is also alleged that the appellant thereafter laid on top of the child and rubbed his penis on her genitals. On 08.10.2014, the child revealed the incident to PW12, her aunt, who in turn informed the family members. PW2 reached home at about 10:00 a.m. on 08.10.2014, and on receiving the information, reported the incident to the Station House Officer, Valanchery Police Station, who recorded Ext.P1 FI Statement at 5:00 p.m. on 08.10.2014.

Registration of Crime and Investigation:

3. Based on the information so furnished, Crime No. 354 of 2014 was registered at the Kadampuzha Police Station on 08.10.2014, under Section 376 (f) r/w. Section 3 r/w. Section 4 of the POCSO Act, by PW13, the Station House Officer, Kadampuzha Police Station.

4. The investigation was thereafter taken over by PW14, the Circle Inspector of Police, Valanchery Police Station. He went to the scene of the crime and prepared Ext.P3 Scene Mahazar. He identified the room where the child was subjected to sexual abuse by the appellant. The clothes which were worn by the child at the time of the occurrence were seized as per Ext.P2 Mahazar. On the same day itself, at 12:30 p.m., the accused was arrested while he was standing near the Kadampuzha Bus Stand, and his arrest was recorded as per Ext.P10 Arrest Memo. Ext.P12 report was submitted before the Court, incorporating the name and address details of the accused. The medical examination of the accused was conducted and was thereafter produced before the jurisdictional court. An application was submitted before the Secretary of the Thrithala Grama Panchayat, and Ext.P6 Birth Certificate was obtained. The seized materials were forwarded to the Court as per Ext.P13 Forwarding Note. The clothes of the survivor were also forwarded for chemical analysis, and this part is evident from Ext.14 Forwarding Note. After completing the investigation, he laid the final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. After complying with the procedure, the case was posted for trial before the Additional Court of Session.

Evidence Tendered:

5. To prove the case of the prosecution, 15 witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 15, and through them, Exts.P1 to P14 were exhibited and marked. No evidence was adduced by the defence. He denied the incriminating materia