Prosecution's case upheld based on victim's testimony and corroborating medical evidence despite delays.

J U D G M E N T

In this appeal filed under Section 3 74 (2) Cr.P.C., the appellant, the sole accused, in S.C.No.406 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Session, Kozhikode, challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 377 IPC and Section 3 (a) read with Section 4 of the PoCSO Act.

2. The prosecution case is that on a day in the month of September 2014, the accused committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature on PW4 a minor boy aged 11 years by thrusting his penis between the thighs of the boy and by inserting his penis into the anus of the boy after undressing him in the bedroom of the house bearing no.V/146, Feroke panchayat, Mangattunilam, Nallur desom. Thus, as per the final report the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 3 (a) read with Section 4 of the PoCSO Act.

3. Crime no.938/2014, Feroke police station, was registered by PW8, the then Sub Inspector of police, that is, Ext.P6 FIR based on Ext.P5 FIS of PW4, the victim. The initial investigation was conducted by PW10, the SHO, Feroke police station. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by PW11, Sub Inspector, Feroke police station, who on completion of investigation submitted the final report before the Court alleging the commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned Section by the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused before the trial court, a charge under Section 377 IPC and Section 3 (a) read with Section 4 of the PoCSO Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW12 were examined and Exts.P1 to P11 were got marked in support of the case. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence.

6. As the trial 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. DW1 and DW2 were examined on behalf of the accused.

7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court by the impugned judgment found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 377 IPC and Section 3 (a) read with Section 4 of the PoCSO Act. Hence he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to a fine of ₹50,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 377 and to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to a fine of ₹50,000/- and in default to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under (a) read with of the PoCSO Act. Out of the fine amount of ₹1,00,000/- if realised, an amount of ₹75,000/- has been directed to be given to PW4, the victim boy as compensation under Section 3 57(1)(b) Cr.P.C.. The substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Set off under Section 4 28 Cr.P.C. has been allowed. Aggrieved, the accused has come up in appeal.

8. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed against the accused/appellant by the trial court are sustainable or not.

9. Heard both sides.

10. I make a brief reference to the oral or documentary evidence relied on by the prosecution in support of the case. PW4 the victim boy when examined deposed that the incident occurred in the month of September 2014 and that he had does not remember the exact date on which the incident occurred. PW6 his mother was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. As his mother was i