The testimony of the victim, classified as a sterling witness, suffices for conviction under sexual offense laws, emphasizing reliability over corroboration unless compelling evidence undermines her claims.

JUDGMENT :

GOPINATH P., J.

1. This appeal is filed challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.261/2020 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge for the Trial of Cases relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’). S.C.No.261/2020 arises out of Crime No.359/CB/TVM/2019 of Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram unit which was registered alleging commission of offences under Sections 376(2)(k), 376(2)(l), 376(2)(n), 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Sections 4 r/w 3(a), 6 r/w 5(j)(i), 6 r/w 5(l), 6 r/w 5(k), 6 r/w 5(p), 10 r/w 9(j)(i), 10 r/w 9(l), 10 r/w 9(p), 12 r/w 11(ii), 12 r/w 11(iii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act’).

The brief facts:-

2. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused) is a physiotherapist by profession. During the period relevant for the purposes of this case, he was employed as a physiotherapist at the KIMS Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram (initially), and thereafter, he established his independent practice and set up a centre with the name 'TIMS' near Ayurveda College Junction in Thiruvananthapuram. The victim in this case (PW1) was, at that time, a child suffering from certain mental and physical disabilities. In order to address certain physical disabilities of the victim, she was required to undergo physiotherapy. Her parents were referred to the accused, who agreed to offer his services. The victim was treated by the accused at her residence for the period between 2011 and 2019. According to the prosecution, the accused had sexually abused and exploited the victim from August 2014 till about March 2019.

3. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 15 and marked Exts. P1 to P36 documents to establish its case against the accused. DWs 1 to 4 were examined for the defence, and Exts. D1, D1(a), D2, D2(a), D2(b), D2(c), D2(d), D2(e), D2(f), D3, and D4 documents were marked for the defence.

4. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, the trial court concluded that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 4 r/w 3(a), 6 r/w 5(j)(i), 6 r/w 5(k), 6 r/w 5(l), 6 r/w 5(p), 10 r/w 9(j)(i), 10 r/w 9(l), 10 r/w 9(p), 12 r/w 11(ii) and 12 r/w 11(iii) of the POCSO Act and under Sections 376(2)(k), 376(2)(l), and 376(2)(n) of the IPC. The accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376C of the IPC. The trial court sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakhs only) for the offence punishable under Section 6 r/w 5(j) (i) of POCSO Act; to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakhs only) for the offence punishable under Section 6 r/w 5(k) of the POCSO Act; to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakhs only) for the offence punishable under Section 6 r/w 5(l) of the POCSO Act; to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakhs only) for the offence punishable under Section 6 r/w 5(p) of the POCSO Act; to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 12 r/w 11(ii) of the POCSO Act; to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 12 r/w