Where a victim identifies an assailant and the court is satisfied with a child witness's competency through direct assessment, the absence of a test identification parade or formal voir dire does not invalidate a conviction, provided the evidentiary record supports the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

A. Badharudeen, J.

This appeal is at the instance of the accused in S.C.No.418/2020 on the files of the Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (`POCSO Act’ for short hereafter), Pattambi, emerges out of the judgment dated 20.07.2022 in the said case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution. Perused the trial court records.

3. The prosecution allegation is that at about 20.30 hours on 13.04.2019 the accused had criminally trespassed upon the courtyard of the house of the victim, who was examined as PW1, and kidnapped her towards the backside of her house. Thereafter she was subjected to aggravated form of sexual assault. Thereby the prosecution allegation is that the appellant/accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376AB, 376(2)(m) of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short) as well as under Section 4 r/w 3(b)(d), 6 r/w 5(i)(m) of the POCSO Act.

4. The Special Court tried the matter, on completion of the pre-trial formalities, and recorded evidence. PW1 to PW16 were examined and Ext.P1 to Ext.P19 were marked on the side of the prosecution. No defence evidence was adduced in this case.

5. On appreciation of evidence, after hearing both sides, the trial court found that the appellant/accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 447, 363, 376 A B, 376(2)(m) of IPC and Section 3(b) r/w 4, 3(d) r/w 4, 7 r/w 8, 5(i) r/w 6, 5(m) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and accordingly he was sentenced as under:

“1). Accused is hereby sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence U/s. 447 IPC.

2). Accused is hereby sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence U/s. 363 IPC and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo further Imprisonment for a period of three months.

3). Accused is hereby sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 20 years for the offence U/s. 376 AB IPC and he is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo further imprisonment for period of one year.

4). Accused is hereby sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 20 years for the offence U/s. 5(i) r/w 6 of the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. and he is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo further imprisonment for period of one year.

5). Accused is hereby sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years for the offence punishable U/s. 7 r/w 8 of the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and he is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of four months.

6). Sentences shall run concurrently.

7). No separate sentence is imposed for the offence U/s. 376(2)(m IPC, Section 3(b) r/w 4, 3(d) r/w 4, 5(m) r/w 6 of the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 due to the reasons discussed above.”

6. While impeaching the veracity of the judgment of the Special Court, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused raised multiple contentions. The main contention raised is that nobody witnessed the incident and the victim could not be able to see the face of the accused properl