Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, C.S. Sudha, JJ
SAINUDHEEN, C.NO.3006 – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A 862 2017
Criminal - Sexual Offences - IPC, PoCSO Act, Juvenile Justice Act - Sections 376(2)(n), 506(ii), 5(l), 5(n) r/w 6, 23 - The court upheld the conviction and sentence for rape and related offences based on the victim's testimony, interpreting the provisions to highlight the necessity of corroborative evidence in context.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for several counts of sexual assault against his 12-year-old daughter over a prolonged period, with threats to ensure silence. The prosecution relied on the victim's testimony and corroborative witnesses, including teachers and family members.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the victim's testimony credible despite minor contradictions and emphasized the reliability of her evidence as corroborated by witness accounts and medical reports, negating arguments of fabrication or inconsistencies.
Issues: Whether the conviction based predominantly on the victim's testimony was sustainable given claims of inconsistencies and the quality of evidence provided.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that while the sole testimony of a victim can lead to conviction, it must inspire confidence. The severity and nature of sexual assault necessitate nuanced appreciation of child witness testimony, especially in cases involving familial abuse.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, reducing the sentence for one offence but confirming the conviction.
J U D G M E N T
C.S.Sudha, J.
This appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by the sole accused in S.C.No.593/2015 on the file of the Court of Session, Ernakulam, has been filed through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Viyyur under Section 383 Cr.P.C challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2) (n), 506 (ii) IPC, 5 (l) & (n) r/w 6 of the PoCSO Act, and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 .
2. The prosecution case as described in the final report/charge sheet is as follows: - The accused with the intention of committing rape on his daughter, aged 12 years, on several days during the period from 27.05.2014 to 27.02.2015, had repeated aggravated penetrative sexual intercourse with her. The place of occurrence is their residence bearing No. XVI/547, Kottuvally Grama Panchayath. The accused also threatened his daughter with dire consequences in case she disclosed the matter to the outside world. Hence the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under the above-mentioned Sections.
3. Based on Ext. P1 FIS of PW1, the victim, given on 05.03.2015 and recorded by PW12, A.S.I of North Paravur Police Station, Ext. P14 FIR, that is, Crime No. 303/2015 was registered by PW15, the then Sub Inspector of the same Police Station. PW14, the then Circle Inspector, Paravur conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet before the court. On submission of the final report before the Sessions Court, the case was taken on file as S.C. No. 259/2015.
4. When the accused appeared before the Court, he was furnished with copies of all prosecution records. On 17.10.2015, the court framed a charge for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(n), 506 (ii) IPC, 5 (l) & (n) r/w 6 of the PoCSO Act, and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 , which was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 15 and got marked Exts. P1 to P14 to prove 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.
5. As the Sessions 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 evidence was adduced by the accused.
6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the learned additional sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, that is, imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and to a fine of ₹10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to a fine of ₹5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 (ii) IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to a fine of ₹5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. No separate sentence has been imposed for offence under Section 5 (l) & (n) r/w 6 of the PoCSO Act in view of Section 42 of the PoCSO Act. The substantive sentences has been directed to run concurrently. Set off has been allowed. The accused was already sentenced to imprisonment for life in S.C. 259/2015. That sentence of imprisonment has been directed to run concurrently with the sentence in this case. It has also been ordered that if the fine amount is realiz
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
