The court established that inconsistencies and the credibility of testimony must be thoroughly evaluated to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

The allegation is of rape of a minor girl, which is countered with an accusation of a spiteful retaliation for the rivalry on stage, that existed between the accused and the father of the victim, both artists, in an indigenous drama form. The accused also attempted to cast a slur on the morals of the victim, without any success.

2. When the matter was posted for hearing on 08.10.2021, as scheduled two months back on 12.08.2021, there was no appearance for the appellant-convict. We hence directed the Superintendent of Prisons to facilitate a video conference with the appellant- convict. On 12.10.2021 we interacted with the appellant-convict and offered him assistance through a Senior Lawyer. The appellant willingly agreed and Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, learned Senior Counsel, kindly consented to assist and agreed to do the appeal pro bono. After we passed the order, the learned Counsel, who was appearing for the appellant, appeared before us and informed us that he is ready to argue the matter. He also apologized for his absence, which, he explained was only due to the pandemic situation. The accused, but, expressed some reservation about the Counsel he engaged and his desire to have the assistance of a Senior Counsel, as suggested by us. In that circumstance, the learned Counsel agreed to relinquish the brief and it was also agreed by the accused that he has no complaint against the Counsel who was appearing for him. We hence posted the matter today for hearing after directing a State Brief to be appointed.

3. The offence alleged, was under S.376 of the Indian Penal Code [for brevity, 'the IPC '] and S.5 & S.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [for brevity, 'the POCSO Act']. The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rupees One lakh under S.6 of the POCSO Act with default sentence of R.I. for six months. By virtue of S.42 of the POCSO Act, there was no separate sentence under S.376 .

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.P.Vijayabhanu instructed through State Brief Smt.Pushpavathy argued for the appellant and Smt.Sheeba Thomas, learned Govt. Pleader & Public Prosecutor, appeared for the State.

5. Smt.Pushpavathy took us through the entire evidence. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that there is undue delay in raising the allegation and also registering the crime. The date of occurrence as seen from the charge is 25.01.2013 and the registration of FIR is on 24.10.2013, after 9 months. When going through the evidence, it is clear that, the child allegedly disclosed the offence five days before registration of the FIR. There is no explanation for the delay on both the counts. It is argued that there is no cogent, believable description of the events leading to and after the commission of crime. The victim and the mother; the latter of whom came to know of it from the former, have different versions at each stage. The entire incident as spoken of by the mother and daughter is full of inconsistencies and do not depict a clear picture. The Certificate of medical examination and the statement under S.164 of the victim are specifically read out to further emphasize the glaring inconsistencies. There is no proof of age and what is produced is neither the extract of the School Register nor the Register itself. The Certificate of the Headmaster cannot be primary evidence or secondary evidence as held in Alex v. State of Kerala [2021 (4) KLT 480]. The learned Senior Counsel would, hence, pray for the acquittal of the accused.

6. Smt.Sheeba Thomas, learned Public Prosecutor, points out that the Admission Register was seized by the Police