Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
VASUDEVAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A/677/2020
Sexual Assault - Sexual Offences - IPC Section List: [376(2)(f), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 354A(1)(i)] and POCSO Act Section List: [3(a), 3(b), 4, 5(l), 5(m), 5(n), 6, 9(m), 10] - The court upheld certain convictions of the accused on sexual assault while setting aside others due to lack of corroborative evidence, applying principles related to delays in FIR and burden of proof in sexual offences.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, relative of the victim, allegedly assaulted the seven-year-old girl on multiple occasions in March 2016. The victim disclosed the incidents leading to police involvement and subsequent trial that found the accused guilty of certain charges under IPC and POCSO Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the conviction for some charges while setting aside others, recognizing the victim's testimony as credible despite the absence of corroboration due to the nature of sexual assault cases and the child’s understanding of the situation.
Issues: Whether the accused was guilty of the charges under the relevant sections of IPC and POCSO Act based on the evidence presented, including the victim's testimony and the impact of the delay in reporting the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: In sexual offences, the victim's testimony can suffice to establish conviction even without corroboration if found credible. Delays in reporting do not automatically negate victim's accounts.
Final Decision: The appeal was partially allowed, confirming convictions under specified sections while setting aside others.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the sole accused in the case S.C.No.253/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kalpetta.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is as follows: The accused and the victim girl were neighbours. The accused is a relative of the father of the victim girl. The girl, who was aged seven years, used to go to the house of the accused to play with his daughter. When the victim girl was at the house of the accused, on several occasions in the month of March 2016, he committed rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her by inserting his finger into her vagina. He also committed sexual assault on her by touching and kissing on her breast and vagina and also by rubbing his penis on her vagina.
3. The victim girl disclosed the acts of the accused to PW4, her cousin sister, when she felt pain during urination. PW4 told the matter to PW1, the mother of the victim girl. When the teachers of the school in which the victim girl was studying came to know about the incident, they contacted the Childline. The matter was brought to the notice of the police by the Childline. On 22.06.2016, PW14 WCPO went to the house of PW1 and recorded Ext.P1 statement given by PW1. PW16 Sub Inspector registered Ext.P11 FIR on the basis of Ext.P1 statement. The investigation of the case was conducted by PW17 Circle Inspector. After completing the investigation, he filed final report against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(f), 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3 (a) and 3(b) read with Section 4 and Sections 5 (l), 5(m) and 5(n) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the POCSO Act').
4. The trial court framed charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(f), 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(n) and Sections 354A (1)(i) read with 354A(2) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 5 (l), 5(m) and 5(n) read with Section 6 and under Sections 9 (l), 9(m) and 9(n) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution examined the witnesses PW1 to PW17 and marked Exts.P1 to P15 documents. No evidence was adduced by the accused.
6. The trial court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 354A (1)(i) read with 354A(2) and Sections 376 (2)(f), 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 5 (l), 5(m) and 5(n) read with Section 6 and Sections 9 (l), 9(m) and 9(n) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act and convicted him thereunder. The trial court sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each of the offences punishable under (2)(f), 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(n) of the and directed that the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. No separate sentence was awarded for the other offences proved to have been committed by him.
7. Aggrieved by the conviction entered against and the sentence imposed on him by the trial court, the accused has preferred this appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
9. Out of the seventeen witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW1,PW2,PW4 to PW8 and PW10 are the material witnesses. PW2 is the victim girl and PW1 is her mother. PW4 is the daughter of the sister of the grandmother of PW2. PW5 and PW6 were the teachers of the school in which PW2 was studying and PW10 was the Headmaster of that school. PW7 is the grandmother of the victim girl. PW8 is the doctor who examined the victim girl on 23.06.2016 at the District Hospital, Mananthavady and issued Ext.P3 medical certificate.
Testimony of the Victim.
10. PW2, the victim girl, has stated in examination-in- chief as follows: Her date of birth is 10.11.2008. She wa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
