The court affirmed the conviction of the accused for sexual offences against his infant daughter, emphasizing the credibility of the victim's mother's testimony and supporting medical evidence despite challenges to the prosecution's case.

J U D G M E N T

In this appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C ., the appellant, the sole accused, in S.C.No.102 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Session, Kottayam, challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(f) , 376(2)(i) , 376(2)(j) , 376 (2)(k) and 376 (2)(n) IPC and Sections 5 (l), (m) and (n) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the Act).

2. According to the prosecution case, the accused ; PW1 his wife and the victim child aged 10 months were living together in their house bearing door no.324/I, Paippadu panchayat. On various days during the month preceding 24/01/2015 ; on 24/01/2015 at 06:30 a.m. and on 25/01/2015 at 09:15 p.m., the accused committed digital rape and cunnilingus on his infant girl child. He also put his penis inside her mouth and thus as per the final report, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 376C(a), 3762(f), (i), (j), (k), (n) and Section 377 IPC ; Section 3(a) read with Section 4, Sections 5 (l),(m),(n) read with Section 6 of the Act.

3. Crime no.327/2015, Changanacherry police station, that is, Ext.P7 FIR was registered by PW8, Senior CPO, Changanacherry police station, based on Ext.P1 FIS of PW1, the mother of the victim child. The investigation was conducted by PW9, Circle Inspector of Police, Changanacherry police station, who on completion of the investigation submitted the final report before the trial court.

4. On appearance of the accused, the trial court after complying with all the necessary formalities contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C ., framed a charge under Sections 376 (2)(f) , 376(2)(i) , 376(2)(j) , 376 (2)(k) , 376 (2)(n) and 377 IPC ; Sections 3(a) and 3(d) read with Section 4 and Sections 5 (l), (m),(n) read with Section 6 of the Act, which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked in support of the case. 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.

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. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

7. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court by the impugned judgment found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 377 IPC and hence he was acquitted of the said offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C . However, he has been found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(f) , 376(2)(i) , 376(2)(j) , 376(2)(k) , 376(2)(n) and Sections 5 (l),(m),(n) read with Section 6 of the Act. Hence, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to a fine of ₹30,000/- and in default to simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under of the Act. In view of Section 42 of the Act, no separate sentence has been awarded for the remaining offences. Set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C . from 09/02/2015 to 10/04/2015 has been given. Aggrieved, the accused has come up in appeal.

8. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed against the appellant/accused by the trial court are sustainable or not.

9. Heard both sides.

10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the contents of Ext.P1 FIS is a figment of imagination of the police. The materials on record show that the relationship between PW1 and her husband, the accused herein, was quite strained. There were disputes between them as