The prosecution must prove the victim's age beyond a reasonable doubt in sexual offence cases, and medical evidence must corroborate the victim's testimony.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused in S.C.No.489/2014 on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Kollam. S.C.No.489/2014 arises out of Crime No.1441/2013 of Sooranad Police Station, Kollam District, which was registered alleging commission of offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ IPC ’) and Section 3 (a) r/w Section 4 and Section 5 (n) r/w Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘POCSO Act’).

2. The allegation, which led to the registration of Crime No.1441/2013 at the Sooranad Police Station, is that the accused, who is the son of the maternal uncle of the victim, sexually assaulted and committed rape on the minor victim on 04-09-2013 at about 12:30 p.m., and thereby he committed the offences alleged against him. The victim, who was aged 13 years at the relevant time, was living with her maternal uncle following the death of her mother.

3. Charges were framed under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 3 (a) r/w Section 4 and Section 5 (n) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 13 and Exts.P1 to P14 documents on behalf of the prosecution, and Ext.D1 for the defence.

4. The trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 3 (a) r/w Section 4 and Section 5 (n) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However, in light of the provisions of Section 4 2 of the POCSO Act, a separate sentence was not awarded for the offences under of the and Section 3 (a) r/w Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The appellant/accused was thus sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In default of payment of the fine, the appellant/accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three more months. It was further directed that out of the fine amount (if realised), Rs. 40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand only) shall be paid to the victim as compensation under Section 3 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code , 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’).

5. Sri. Renjith B. Marar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contends that the conviction of the appellant/accused for the offences in question cannot be sustained in law. It is submitted that there are considerable inconsistencies in the evidence of PW1 (the victim) and PW5. It is submitted that PW5 is a cousin of the victim, and she was the one who was informed first of the incident and who accompanied PW1 to the Police Station. It is submitted that PW5 is also the person who gave the First Information Statement (Ext.P4). It is submitted that the medical evidence does not support the case of PW1. It is submitted that the age of the victim has not been proved in accordance with the law. It is submitted that even if Ext.P6 is accepted as a certificate issued by the school for the purposes of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act , 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2015 Act'), the evidence of PW7 indicates that the certificate issued by her cannot be determinative of the age of the victim as the date of birth of the victim was not recorded in the school records of which the PW7 was the Principal at the relevant time based on any authentic records such as Birth Certificate etc. but on the basis of the date of birth of the victim as recorded in the Transfer Certificate issued by the school in which she was earlier studying. It is submitted that in such circumstances,