The conviction of a defendant for sexual offences against a minor can be upheld based on the credible testimony of the victim even in the presence of minor inconsistencies in her statements.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

This appeal, preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, is directed against the judgment dated 14.02.2019 in S.C. No. 452 of 2018 passed by the Special Judge for the Trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Thalassery. By the above judgment, the appellant herein was found guilty of the offence under Section 5 (l)(r) r/w. Section 6 and Section 9 (i)(r) r/w. Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 (for brevity ‘POCSO Act’) and Sections 370(4), 370A(1), 376(2)(i), 506(i), 392 and 307 of the IPC. The appellant was sentenced:

(a) to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC, with a default clause.

(b) to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) for the offence punishable under Section 5 (i) r/w. Section 6 of the POCSO Act, with a default clause.

(c) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten(10) years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) for the offence punishable under Section 370(4) of the IPC, with a default clause.

(d) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) for the offence punishable under Section 370A(1) of the IPC, with a default clause.

(e) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten(10) years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC, with a default clause.

(f) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 506(i) of the IPC.

By this appeal, the appellant impugns the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge on various grounds.

The Prosecution Case

2. The survivor, aged 13 years, is the daughter of PW2 and was pursuing her education at a school in Cherupuzha, where PW7 served as the Headmaster. She was enrolled as a Student Police Cadet. On 03.02.2018, the survivor participated in a parade that concluded around 12:30 p.m. The accused, who was known to the survivor as he had previously worked with her father, boarded the same bus in which the survivor was travelling home. The accused initiated conversation by smiling at her and asking whether she was the daughter of her parents, whom he identified by name. This was done to instill confidence in the mind of the child. After renewing the acquaintance, the accused told the child that if she alighted at Madakkampoyil instead of Kuttoor, she could reach home sooner. Persuaded by his words, the survivor got down with him at Madakkampoyil. He then offered to escort her home and led her along a pathway for about 20 minutes until they reached a secluded rubber plantation. At that point, the survivor became apprehensive and attempted to return. The accused, however, caught hold of her hand and asked her (meaning, “will you give it to me”). When the survivor tried to make good her escape, the accused gagged her and pressed on her breasts. He then tied the neck of PW1 by using the belt of the bag, which was being carried by her. He forced her to lie on the ground and, thereafter, removed her white T-shirt, tracksuit, leggings, shimmie, and her panties. As the survivor was menstruating, she kept a cloth inside her panties. The prosecution alleges that after removing the clothes, the accused subjected her to ra