The court established that the testimony of a minor victim can serve as the sole basis for conviction in sexual assault cases when credible and corroborated by medical evidence.

JUDGMENT

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The sole accused in S.C. No.476/2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I (Special Court for the trial of cases on Atrocities Against Women and Children), Kasaragod has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 324 , 506(2), 376(2)(f)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

2. The prosecution allegation in the said case is that the accused, who is the stepfather of PW3 a minor girl aged 13 years, on 02.04.2018, between 04:00 a.m and 07:30 a.m, threatened PW3 as well as her mother (PW12), by showing a knife and also inflicted an injury on the left palm of PW3 with the said knife and committed rape on her in the presence of PW12 after putting both of them in fear of death. It is further alleged that on a previous occasion also the accused committed rape on PW3. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 324 , 506(2), 376(2)(f),(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(l)(n)(p) r/w Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

3. Based on the statement given by the victim minor girl, a case was registered as Crime No.214/2018 of Kumbala Police Station. Thereafter, the investigation into the crime followed, and pursuant to that, a final report was filed before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kasaragod (Special Court for the trial of cases related to Atrocities against Women and Children). The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences, and the case was taken on file as S.C. No.476/2018. As the accused had been in judicial custody since the time of his arrest in connection with the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge secured his presence by issuing a production warrant. Upon production of the accused, the procedure prescribed under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was duly complied with.

4. After hearing both sides under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., and perusal of records, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, framed a written charge against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 324 , 506(2), 376(2)(f)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

5. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution thereupon examined 13 witnesses as PW1 to PW13 and marked Exts. P1 to P22. MO1 to MO4 were exhibited and identified.

After the completion of the prosecution's evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., during which he denied all the incriminating materials brought out against him in evidence. Since it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C., the accused was directed to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence that he may have in support thereof. But no evidence whatsoever was adduced from the side of the accused. 6. After trial, the accused was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 324 , 506(2), 376(2)(f),(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(l)(n) r/w Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, that is, imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 376 (2)(f) &(n) of the IPC . For the offences punishable under and 506(ii) of the , the accused was sentenced to undergo ri