Reliability of victim's testimony and absence of corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of a prosecutrix.

Johnson John, J . The appellant is challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him in S.C. Nos. 60 and 61 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam for the offences under Sections 376(2)(f) and 506(ii) IPC and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘JJ Act’ for short), as per the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2017.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused, who is the biological father of the minor victim girl, had subjected her to repeated sexual intercourse during the period from June, 2010 to September, 2014 and after investigation, four separate charge sheets were filed and the charge sheet pertaining to the offences committed during the period from June, 2010 to May, 2011 was taken on file as S.C. No. 61 of 2017, and the charge sheet pertaining to the offences committed during the period from June, 2011 to May, 2012 was taken on file as S.C. No. 60 of

2017. The charge sheet for the period from June, 2012 to May, 2013 was taken on file as S.C. No. 59 of 2017 and the charge sheet for the : 4 :

period from June, 2013 to September, 2014 was taken on file as S.C. No. 58 of 2017.

3. When the accused was produced before the trial court, after hearing both sides, charge was framed against the accused in all the four cases and the trial court also allowed the petition filed by the accused for joint trial as C.M.P No. 907 of 2017 and accordingly, all the above 4 cases were tried jointly. From the side of the prosecution PWs 1 to 12 were examined. Exhibits P1 to P15 were marked, and no evidence was adduced from the side of the defence.

4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2017, found the accused not guilty of the offences charged against him in S.C. Nos. 58 and 59 of 2017 and therefore, acquitted him in those two cases. But the accused was found guilty under Sections 376(2)(f) and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 23 of the JJ Act in S.C. Nos. 61 and 60 of 2017 and he is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for two months for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous : 5 :

imprisonment for one month for the offence 506(ii) of IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 23 of the JJ Act, in S.C. Nos 61 and 60 of 2017. 5. Heard Smt. Saipooja, the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Bindu O.V., the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the records.

6. The point that arises for consideration is whether the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the accused by the trial court are sustainable or not.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there are serious inconsistencies in the evidence of the victim and her mother and there is inordinate delay in filing the FIR. It is argued that the prosecution has not examined the teacher of the school to whom the victim has first disclosed the alleged incident and that the evidence of PW1 in cross examination would show that during the relevant period, the accused resided in a rented house and the prosecution has no case that the accused subjected the victim to sexual intercourse in his rented house and therefore, the trial court ought to have found that the testimony of PW1 is not of sterling quality.

8. In Santhosh Prasad v. State of Bihar [2020 KHC 6155], it is held that if the conviction has to be based on the sole testimony of the : 6 :

victim in a rape case, the deposition of the victim must be of sterling quality. It is well settled