The judgment clarifies that allegations of sexual assault must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies among witnesses undermine credibility in such cases.

JUDGMENT

Vinod Chandran, J.

Charity or perfidy is the question raised in the appeal where the prosecution alleged that the Managing Trustee of a charitable children's home sexually abused the children, left to his care. The learned Counsel for the appellants, who are the victims, submit that the children were admitted in the charitable home only by reason of the penury of the parents and the person in charge of the Home, under the cloak of a protector, turned predator. The respondent vehemently asserts that the prosecution is malicious and ill-motivated; a direct off shoot of the disputes pending in the Civil Court with respect to the administration of the Trust. The accused was acquitted of the charges by the trial court, against which the victims filed the above appeal. The allegation was that the appellants and other children, inmates of the Home were repeatedly subjected to sexual molestation by the Managing Trustee of the Trust under which the children's home is run.

2. Sri.M.Revikrishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants point out that both the appellants examined as PWs.2 and 3 spoke of the atrocities committed on them. At least in the case of PW3 there is absolutely no contradiction and his evidence is fully corroborated by Ext.P14 medical report. The delay in raising a complaint is only because of the penurious condition in which the appellants were living. The appellants while they were in the Home were naturally, also intimidated by the authority wielded by the accused who was running the Home. The objection raised by the defence, regarding the period in which the appellants were housed in the Home, has been rendered unsustainable going by the evidence of PW15, Head Master (H.M) of the school in which the appellants studied. PW15 categorically stated that in the year 2006-07 the appellants were attending school from the Home and the period tallies with the time when the alleged acts were committed on the children. The time also tallies with the occurrence and continuation of the symptoms complained of by PW3; a direct result of the alleged molestation of sodomy.

3. The allegation raised of malicious prosecution is just to escape the clutches of law and the civil suits pending between the parties cannot lead to such a presumption. If the allegations, as spoken of by the victims, are found to be true, the civil disputes cannot be presumed to be the motive; to condone the dastardly acts committed by the accused on the minor children. Delay is natural in the settings in which the incident happened as also the circumstances of the penurious family. In any event the mother told the Doctor, PW4 and when PW1, another trustee came to know of the same, immediately informed the authorities. The fact that only two children stuck to their allegations and appeared in Court cannot go in favor of the accused. The consideration of Courts in such cases should be laced with compassion and the delay in reporting is inconsequential, as held in Childline India Foundation v. Allan John Waters (2011) 6 SCC 261 . Learned Counsel argued that corroboration is not imperative, where the victim of sexual offence clearly speaks on the atrocity, relying on State of Kerala v. Kurissum Moottil Antony , (2007) 1 SCC 627 . If not a reversal, at least an open remand should be made is the fervent plea made by the Counsel.

4. Sri.John S Ralph, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused pointed out that the FIS was made after Ext.D11 plaint was filed before the Civil Court. The statements in Ext.D10 deposition, as also in the FIS clearly indicate, instigation by an Irish lady who had earlier contributed to the Trust. There is serious inconsistency with respect to how PW1, the first informant, came to know of the allegations. He admits to have been motivated by the Irish lady to get the accused evicted from the Trust, which is the motive behind the criminal proceedings initiated. There is gross suppression on the part of the prosecuting