The court upheld the conviction for sexual offences against a minor, confirming that intimidation can justify delays in lodging an FIR while the evidence for the charges, including threats and actions of the accused, was coherent.

JUDGMENT :

A.BADHARUDEEN, J.

The sole accused in S.C.No.502 of 2011 on the files of the I^st Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad has filed this Criminal Appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him in the said case dated 21.06.2016.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused. Also heard the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the verdict impugned and the evidence available.

3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 450, 354 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ' IPC ') by the accused/appellant.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that around at 2:00 p.m. on 12.12.2010, the accused with an intention to satisfy his lust criminally trespassed upon the residential house of the victim girl of 11 years in Ambalappara II village bearing door No.II/540. Thereafter the accused sexually seduced her, threatened and intimidated the girl, forcefully overpowered and denuded her and thereby her modesty was outraged. Further the accused forcefully subjected her for unnatural sexual offences/carnal intercourse and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

5. On getting the matter before the Additional Sessions Court, the learned Judge completed pre-trial formalities and framed charge for the said offences and tried the case. During trial, PW1 to 16 were examined, Exts.P1 to P18 and MO1 to MO2 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Ext.D1 was marked on the side of the defence. No other defence evidence adduced.

6. Finally the Additional Sessions Court found that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 450, 354 and 377 of the IPC . The sentence imposed on the accused are as under:

“(a) He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 4(Four) years and a fine of RS.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1(One) year for the offence punishable under Section 450 of IPC .

(b) He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 2 (Two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6(Six) months for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC .

(c) He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (Seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2(Two) years for the offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC .”

7. While assailing the verdict, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this Case the offence under Section 450 IPC would not attract since would attract when a person commits house-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life. According to the learned counsel, though the serious offence alleged by the prosecution is one punishable under Section 377 of for which the sentence provided is imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, as far the offence under of is concerned, the ingredients for the said offence could not be found from the evidence of PW1, the victim. Thus none of the offences could be found against the accused/appellant for want of convincing evidence. It is also pointed out that there is marginal delay in registering the FIR in respect of an occurrence on 12.12.2010 where the FIS marked as Ext.P2 was recorded on 27.12.2010 and FIR was registered on 04.01.2011. It is also submitted that Ext.P1 was also tendered in evidence while examining PW1 stating the same was given by her to PW5, Dr.Girija Madhavan, consultant Paediatrician, the doctor who had examined her on 12.01.2011, while issuing Ext.P3 certificate. Acc