The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the victim's testimony, the burden of proof on the accused, and the obligation to compensate and rehabilitate victims of crime.

JUDGMENT

Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

The appellant before us was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for fixed terms and fine in S.C.No.220/2016 on the file of the Special Court under the POCSO Act, Thodupuzha (for short ‘trial court’) for the offences under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’), and Section 506 (1), Section 326B and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

The prosecution case was that the appellant, who is the stepfather of PW1, a minor girl aged 15 years, who was studying at the Government High School, Adimali and staying at the Mannamkala Tribal hostel, took her away from the hostel on 28.03.2015 at 12 noon after telling her and the hostel authorities that her uncle had been bitten by a snake and that her grandfather was not well; that after travelling some distance in an autorickshaw, they got off at a jungle pathway near the girl’s house and while walking through that pathway, the appellant committed rape on the minor girl on multiple occasions thereby committing the offences under Section 6 read with Section 5 of the POCSO Act. It was the further case of the prosecution that as the girl tried to resist the commission of the rape, the appellant twisted her hand, slapped her on the face, intimidated her and attempted to pour acid in her mouth, thereby committing the offences under Sections 323, 326B and 506 (1) of the IPC.

3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. In the trial that followed, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses as PW1 to PW16 and marked Exts.P1, P1(a), P2 to P7, P7(a), P8 to P17 and P17(a) documents. The witnesses also identified MOs.1 to 6. After questioning the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the learned Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused were heard under Section 232 Cr.PC. Not finding him entitled to an acquittal at that stage, the appellant was called upon to adduce evidence in his defence. However, no evidence was adduced. The trial court, therefore, proceeded to hear the learned counsel on either side and convict the appellant as charged. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 326B of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 323 of IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 506(1) of IPC. Substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to be run concurrently.

4. In the appeal before us, we have heard Adv. Smt.Saipooja, on behalf of the appellant and Adv. Smt.Ambika Devi, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent State. We have also gone through the records of the trial court that were made available before us and through which we were meticulously taken by the learned counsel.

5. The submissions of Smt.Saipooja, the learned counsel for the appellant, briefly stated are as follows:

 The conviction of the appellant based solely on the testimony of the victim PW1 cannot be legally sustained since the said testimony cannot be seen as of ‘sterling quality’. It is, in particular, pointed out that owing to the delay in registration of the FIR, the lack of reliable medical evidence, and the material inconsistencies in the statement of PW1 when compared to the statement of the other witnesses, the testimony of PW1 did not satisfy the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar – [2020