The conviction in sexual assault cases can be based solely on the victim's reliable testimony, irrespective of physical injury evidence.

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused in S.C. No.562 of 2012 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court (For the trial of cases relating to Atrocities & Sexual Violence against Women and Children), Ernakulam, the accused has preferred this appeal, challenging the said conviction.

2. The appellant was the accused in Crime No.495 of 2010 of Varapuzha Police Station, which was tried as S.C. No.562 of 2012 before the Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under section 376(1) IPC , rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under section 366 , apart from rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence under section 506(ii) . Compensation to the victim under the victim compensation scheme was also directed to be paid by the trial court.

3. The prosecution alleged that the accused with an intention to kidnap and rape a minor girl, had, on 05.09.2010 at 3 pm, kidnapped the victim, while she was on her way home after buying lemon from a shop, and raped her after dragging her to a nearby fallow land and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. The prosecution, in a bid to prove its case, examined PW1 to PW15 and marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P17 apart from MO1 to MO10, while the defence marked Ext.D1 and Ext.D1(a). After examining the prosecution evidence, the trial court concluded that the accused after kidnapping the 13 year old victim on 05.09.2010, raped her and thereby committed the offences alleged.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the material evidence did not justify the allegation of rape as there was no rupture of the hymen or any injuries on the private parts of the victim. It was also submitted that the investigating officer had filed a report to alter the charge framed from section 376 IPC to section 511 of 376 and thereafter the final report was filed only for those offences and the trial court failed to take into consideration the said report, while finding the accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 376 . Learned counsel further submitted that the trial court also failed to consider that the place of incident was in a locality where there were numerous persons and none of them were examined, which itself indicates the falsity of the prosecution case. It was finally submitted that kidnapping the victim for the purpose of sexual intercourse had not been proved by the prosecution as required by law and therefore the accused could not have been convicted for the said offence as well.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the offence committed by the accused and therefore the same does not warrant any interference. It was further submitted that the medical evidence proved that there was actual commission of rape, which cannot be regarded as only an attempt to commit rape and hence, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference. The learned Prosecutor also pointed out that despite the final report only alleging section 511 of section 376 IPC , the trial court had framed the charge under section 376 and hence the contention of the accused is not legally tenable.

7. I have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the trial court records.

8. At the outset itself, it is appropriate to deal with the contention regarding the charge under section 376 framed by the trial c