The court affirms that minor victims' testimonies can be solely relied upon in sexual offence cases, provided they are credible, and clarifies that penetration into external genitalia suffices to constitute rape.

JUDGMENT :

Jobin Sebastian, J.

1. The sole accused in S.C. No.747/2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I (Special Court for the trial of cases on Atrocities Against Women and Children), Kasaragode has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Section 376 AB of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

2. The prosecution allegation is that the accused who belongs to Nair community committed rape as well as penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl, aged 4½ years, who belongs to Maratti community, a scheduled tribe, by inserting his finger and penis into her vagina on many occasions including on 31.08.2018 and on 07.09.2018 at about 10.00 a.m., and on 09.09.2018 in between 3.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m., at the quarters of the accused bearing Door No. V/55(E) of Kutikkol Grama Panchayat and thereby, committed offences punishable under Sections 3 76, 376AB of the IPC, Sections 3 (a) and 3(b) r/w Section 4 , Sections 5 (i), 5(l), 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3 (2)(v), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

3. On completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kasaragode (Special Court for the trial of cases related to Atrocities against Women and Children). The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences and the case was taken on file as S.C. 747/2018 and process was issued to the accused. On appearance of the accused, procedure under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was complied with.

4. After hearing both sides under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., and perusal of records, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, framed a written charge against the accused for offence punishable under Section 3 76 AB of the IPC, Section 6 r/w 5(m) of the POCSO Act and Sections 3 (2)(v), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 . When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution thereupon examined the witnesses on their side as PW1 to PW22 and proved through them Exts.P1 to P22 documents. One document produced by a prosecution witness was marked from the side of the defence as Ext. D1. MO1 series are the material objects identified by the prosecution witnesses and marked in evidence. After completion of prosecution evidence, when the accused was questioned under Section 3 13 of the Cr.P.C., he denied all the incriminating materials brought out against him in evidence. Since it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C., the accused was directed to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence, he may have in support thereof. But no evidence, whatsoever, was adduced from the side of the accused.

5. After trial, the accused was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 376 AB of the IPC and Section 6 r/w 5 of the POCSO Act and convicted. The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, that is imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with a default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 376 AB of the IPC . By virt