The court reaffirmed that the victim's testimony is decisive in sexual offence cases, and a minor's age must be established based on consistent evidence, including oral testimonies.

JUDGMENT :

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

Appellant challenges the conviction and sentence imposed upon him in S.C No. 345 of 2016 on the files of the Special Court for Atrocities against Women and Children, Kasaragod.

2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been found guilty for the offences punishable under section 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code,1860, (for short ‘the IPC ’) and section 6 r/w section 5(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO'). He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years under section 376(2)(i) and section 376(2)(n) of IPC , in view of section 42 of the POCSO Act. The accused was, however, found not guilty for the offence under section 5(n) of the POCSO Act. Compensation to the victim under the victim compensation scheme was also directed to be paid by the trial court.

3. The prosecution alleged that in September, 2015 and thereafter on several days, till February 2016, the accused raped a minor girl aged 13 years in her house at Malom village and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. The prosecution had, in an attempt to prove its case, examined PW1 to PW12 and marked Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P17, apart from material object MO1 series. After analysing the evidence adduced, the trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced him as mentioned earlier.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution allegations are totally false and the same do not make out any offence against the appellant. It was also submitted that the age of the victim was not proved as per law as Exhibit P2 birth certificate does not refer to or identify the victim. It was submitted that Ext.P2 mentions only the name of the victim's parents and since it had come out in evidence that the victim has another sibling, the said birth certificate could possibly relate to the sister of the victim as well and therefore, the benefit of doubt ought to be extended to the accused. The learned counsel also submitted that, on a perusal of the scene mahazar of the room, where the incident is alleged to have taken place, the instances of rape alleged was practically impossible as there were only two rooms in the house and it cannot be believed that the victim, who was allegedly only 13 years at that time, was occupying one room in that house all to herself, while around six other remaining adult family members occupied the only remaining room. In any event, it was submitted that, considering the young age of the appellant i.e. 20 years in 2016, a lenient view ought to be adopted in respect of the sentence imposed upon him.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand contended that the allegations are serious in nature and the prosecution had clearly proved the offence committed by the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that a minor girl of 13 years had been repeatedly subjected to penetrative sexual assault and hence the Court ought not to show any leniency in the matter of sentencing. Controverting the contentions regarding Ext.P2 birth certificate, it was submitted that such certificates are generally issued with the column designated for entering the name of the child filled as