The court upheld the conviction for rape, affirming that the victim's intellectual disability did not preclude her from being a competent witness, and the delay in reporting was justifiable due to her mental trauma.

JUDGMENT

In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C ., the appellant, the sole accused in S.C.No.602 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Session, Ernakulam, challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC .

2. The prosecution case as revealed from the final report/charge sheet filed before the trial court on 31/07/2011 is as follows:- The accused during the past one year has been molesting PW1, his neighbour a 16 year old girl, who is intellectually disabled

several times inside her house bearing V/104, Parakkadavu Panchayath, Kodussery, Parakkadavu Village. On 30/12/2010 at 10:00 a.m. he raped her inside the southern room of her house. He raped her several times thereafter also. Hence, as per the final report, the accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC .

3. Crime no.735/2011, that is, Ext.P11 FIR was registered by PW14, Sub Inspector, Angamaly Police Station based on Ext.P1 FIS given by PW4, the paternal uncle of PW1. The investigation was conducted by PW15, the Sub Inspector, Angamaly Police Station, who on completion of investigation submitted the final report before the jurisdictional magistrate alleging the commission of the offence punishable under the aforementioned Section by the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the jurisdictional magistrate after complying with all the necessary formalities contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C ., committed the case to the Court of Session, Ernakulam. The case was taken on file as S.C.No.602/2011 and thereafter made over to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, the designated court for Trial of Cases Relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence Against Women and Children, for trial and disposal. On 06/02/2013, the trial court framed a charge for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC , which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW17 were examined and Exts.P1 to P19 and M.O.1 series were marked on the side of the prosecution. PW1 and PW3 were thereafter recalled on the request of the prosecution and Exts.P19 and P18 marked. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C . regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He also gave a statement in writing explaining his stand. According to him he has two grown-up daughters. He is not involved in any crime till date. PW1 his neighbour has mental problems and infirmities from the time she was studying in high school. She is in the habit of imagining things. She is quite fearful in nature. She entertains the feeling that the soul of dead people possesses her. Several poojas were conducted in her house for her treatment. The story that the accused had sexually abused her is only a figment of her imagination. PW1 is like a daughter to him. He is on inimical terms with PW5 and the other relatives of PW1. Therefore, after the demise of PW1's father, the said relatives have fabricated a case using PW1 and PW3.

6. As the trial court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C ., he was asked to enter on his defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. From the impugned judgment it is seen that though the accused initially stated that he wanted to examine witnesses thereafter, no witnesses were produced. It was at this stage the trial court summoned and examined the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Thrissur Corporation as CW1 to prove Ext.C1, the extract of the birth register. Thereafter, the evidence was closed and both parties were heard.

7. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court by the impugned judgment found the accused guilty of the offence punishable und