Credible testimony from a victim in sexual assault cases is sufficient for conviction even in the absence of corroborative evidence, especially under POCSO provisions.

J U D G M E N T

Jayachandran, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Alappuzha (Special Court for trial of offences under the POCSO Act) in S.C.No.444 of 2015 dated 30.10.2017, as per which, the appellant – the victim's father – was found guilty of offences under Sections, 376(2)(f) and 506(i) of the Penal Code and Section 5 (j)(i), 5(l), 5(n), r/w Section 6 , 9(l), 9(n) r/w Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short PoCSO Act) and also under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2000. He was sentenced to various terms, including a term for imprisonment for life, which shall mean the remainder of the natural life of the accused for offence under Section 376 (2)(f) of the Penal Code.

2. The prosecution allegations are as follows:

The accused, who is the father of the victim/PW1, with necessary sexual intent, used to caress the breast of the victim/PW1 ever since she was studying from 7th standard onwards. In the year 2013, the accused raped the victim by inserting his penis to her vagina. This was repeated in the same year, when the accused ejaculated on her belly, with the result, the mental balance of the victim was impaired. The victim was threatened by the accused to be finished off, if the incident is divulged to anybody, thus committing the offences enumerated above.

3. In support of this case, the prosecution paraded 11 witnesses, through whom Exts.1 to P10 were marked. In the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all incriminating evidence adduced as against him. No defence evidence, oral or documentary, whatsoever, was adduced. On an analysis of the facts and evidence, learned Sessions Judge found PW1, the victim, to be a credible witness and acting upon the same and further supported by other evidence, found the accused guilty of the offences as indicated above.

4. Sri.P.K.Varghese, learned counsel for the appellant/accused contended that, a case of aggravated sexual assault is neither specifically alleged by the prosecution, nor proved. Therefore, the conviction under Section 9 (l) and 9(n), r/w Section 10 of the POCSO Act is unsustainable. In support of the assertion, learned counsel invited our attention to Ext.P4 medical certificate and the evidence adduced by PW5 doctor. It was pointed out that the victim's vagina admits only a tip of the finger, thereby negating the case of penetrative sexual assault. Learned counsel then submitted that, the victim/PW1 is not a witness of a sterling quality, so as to rest the conviction on that sole basis. According to the learned counsel, it is wholly unbelievable that the incidents of sexual advances, alleged to have been made by the accused/father while the victim was studying in the 7th standard, was hushed up until the last precipitating incident, which occurred while she was studying in the 10th standard. No explanation, whatsoever, is forthcoming as to why the victim, who initially chose to hush up and suppress the so called advances for the sake of her family, especially, her brother, choose to speak against the accused in respect of the last incident. The victim maintains a case right from Ext.P1 FIS that, she used to share her father's sexual advances to her friend by name Anjulakshmi, who, for reasons best known to the prosecution, was not examined. Coupled with that, the investigating officer/PW10 gave evidence to the effect that, he had questioned the said Anjulakshmi, from whom, no knowledge as to the incidents spoken of by PW1 could be deciphered. This makes the witness all the more vulnerable, far from the standards of a witness of sterling quality. Another discrepancy pointed out is with respect to the non-examination of one Dr.Soumya, to whom, the victim had allegedly disclosed the incident first. As regards Ext.P4, medical certificate dated

18.12.2013, learned counsel would point out that the same was obtained even before the first