Proper documentation proving a victim's age is essential for under POCSO Act, but other charges like under IPC can still stand based on available evidence.

JUDGMENT

The appeal on hand is originated from a judgment passed by First Additional District and Sessions Court, Kollam (for short, ‘the trial court ’) in S.C No. 422 of 2015. The appellant is the sole accused in the above case. The offences allegedly committed by him are those punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the I.P.C’), Section 5 (n) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the POCSO Act’) and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, ‘the JJ Act’).

2. The appellant was charged by the trial court for the above offences and was found guilty, convicted and sentenced only under Section 6 of the POCSO Act vide judgment passed on 28.02.2018. On default of payment of fine, the appellant was also directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three more months.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the accused and the prosecution in accordance with their status before the trial court.

4. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused who is the father of the victim, a minor girl aged 14 years, while residing together at Iswarya Bhavan, Poothakkulam village on a Sunday about two years prior to 27.04.2014 at about 12 noon committed rape on her at the eastern room of the house bearing door No.III/481 of Poothakkulam Panchayath after intimidating her. It was alleged further that the accused had caught the breasts of the victim and at the same bed room two months prior to 27.04.2014 at about 1 o’clock in the night, on many days, stared at her with sexual lust.

5. First Information Statement was lodged by the victim and on its basis the law was set in motion by registering a crime. Preliminary investigation was conducted in the crime registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Paravur. Investigation was completed by the successor in Office of the Sub Inspector of Police, Paravur and on concluding it, a Final Report was laid against the accused, which was taken on its file as S.C No.422 of 2015.

6. The accused entered appearance, following service of process on him from the court. On his appearance, copies of all relevant records were furnished to him. On the basis of those records and after hearing both sides, charge was framed against the accused for offences punishable under Section 376 IPC , Section 5 (n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 23 of the JJ Act. Charge was read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and thereupon the case was scheduled for trial.

7. The accused faced trial. The evidence adduced by the prosecution consists of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 13 and documentary evidence of Exts.P1 to P13. MO1 was also identified. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’). He denied all incriminating circumstances brought against him by the prosecution and raised a plea of total innocence.

8. Written statement was filed by him contending that the property stands in the name of his wife and himself was furnished as security in a Bank for obtaining a loan, that himself and his wife were on dispute with reference to that, that the marriage of a relative of his wife was solemnized at his initiative and that lady committed suicide within a few days of the marriage itself and that for the reasons, the in-laws and the wife of the accused were in inimical terms with him.

9. It was further stated that his daughter was in love affair with one Kuttapai and that he warned the boy and beat her for giving a love letter. According to him, those circumstances, led a false case to be foisted against him by his daughter as instigated by his wife and in-laws. According to him, when he was enlarged on bail, his wife had also filed a false case against him before Family Court, Attingal.

10. Both sides were heard