Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 34265
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. Sudha, J
ANEESH @ KUTAN C NO.576/15 – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A 515/2016
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The court established that credible testimony from a minor, corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient for conviction in sexual assault cases.
Headnote:
Criminal - Sexual Offences - IPC Sections 366, 376(2)(i) and PoCSO Act Section 6 - The court upheld the conviction for sexual assault on a minor, emphasizing the credibility of the victim's testimony and the sufficiency of evidence despite procedural delays.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged with kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 9-year-old girl. The victim testified that the accused lured her with sweets and then assaulted her in a secluded area. Medical examinations supported her claims.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the victim's testimony credible and consistent, with no substantial evidence to discredit her account. The medical evidence corroborated the occurrence of sexual assault, leading to the conclusion that the accused was guilty.
Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were sustainable based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the victim's unchallenged testimony, supported by medical evidence, was sufficient to uphold the conviction for sexual offences against a minor.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence of the accused.
JUDGMENT
In this appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. the appellant who is the accused in S.C.No.13/2015 on the file of the Court of Session, Kalpetta, challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 366 , 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 (the PoCSO Act).
2. The prosecution case is that on 26/05/2013 at 12:00 noon, PW6, a girl aged 9 years, had gone with her mother to the river near her home for bathing. While her mother was bathing her, the accused came there and asked her mother whether she had paan with her. Her mother replied that if the accused wanted paan, he would have to go to the shop and buy it.
The accused then invited PW2 to accompany him promising her that he would buy sweets for her. Accordingly, PW2 with the permission of her mother went along with the accused. However, the accused instead of taking her to the shop, took her to the bushes near the shop and forcibly, had intercourse with her. Hence the accused as per the final report, was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 376A, 376(2)(i)
IPC and Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the PoCSO Act.
3. Based on Ext.P5 FIS of PW6, Crime No.220/2013, Panamaram police station, that is Ext.P6 FIR was registered by PW5, the Sub Inspector. PW8, the then C.I., Meenangadi police station, conducted the investigation and on completion of investigation, submitted the final report against the accused before the Court of Session, Kalpetta, which was initially designated as the special court for the trial of offences under the PoCSO Act. The case was taken on file as S.C.No.190/2013.
4. On appearance of the accused before the trial court, he was furnished with copies of the case records as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. On 16/09/2014, a charge under Section 366 , 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW8 were examined and Exts.P1 to P11 and MO.1 to MO.3 were got marked in support of the case.
6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence.
7. 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. DW1 was examined and Ext.D1 was marked on the side of the defence.
8. After the recording of evidence was completed and the matter was posted for arguments, the 1st Additional Court was designated as a special court for trial of offences under the PoCSO Act and hence the case was transferred to the said court and re-numbered as S.C.No.13/2015. On a 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 offences punishable under Sections 366 , 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of ₹20,000/- and in default, to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the PoCSO Act and to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of ₹10,000/- and in default, to rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 366 . No separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 376 in lieu of Section 42 of the PoCSO Act. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The fine amount if realised, has been directed to be paid to the victim as compensation. Set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has also been allowed. Aggrieved, the accused has come up in appeal.
9. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal
