Conviction under POCSO Act upheld; sentence modified to statutory minimum considering time served.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30thday of March, 2026 Sole accused in S.C.No.603/2021 on the files of the Special Court under theProtection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(for short, 'the PoCSO Act' hereinafter), Kattappana, has preferred this appeal, challenging conviction and sentence imposed against him in the above case, dated 06.08.2022.

2. Heard the learned legal aid counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the judgment under challenge.

3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354A(2) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC' hereinafter) and under Sections 10 r/w 9(l),(m) and (n) of the PoCSO Act, by the accused.

4. The prosecution case is that the accused, who is the grandfather of the victim and was bound to protect her, sexually assaulted her between 20.03.2020 and 20.08.2021 at House No.III/165 of Pampadumpara Grama Panchayat, while residing with her.

5. The learned Special Judge proceeded with trial and recorded evidence. The evidence confined to that of PW1 to PW10 and Exts.P1 to P14 on the side of the prosecution. No defence evidence was adduced. Thereafter, the accused was found guilty and he was sentenced as under:

“In the result:

1. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- u/s.354 IPC and to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each u/s.10 r/w s.9(l), s.10 r/w s.9(m) and s.10 r/w s.9(n) of the POCSo Act, and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months under each head;

2. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently;

3. The accused is entitled to get set off for the period for which he was in custody in connection with this case ie. from 29.08.2021 to 30.10.2021;

4. If the fine amount is realised, Rs.20,000/- out of it shall be paid to PW3, the victim as compensation.”

6. The learned legal aid counsel for the appellant/accused initially argued on the merits of the case but, on a consideration of the evidence on record supporting the findings of the Special Court regarding the commission of the offences, the learned counsel felt convinced that the appeal would not succeed on merits, and he submitted that the appellant/accused has already undergone a sentence of more than 3½ years and a reduction of the sentence would suffice.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor also argued in support of the conviction and sentence. However, it was submitted that leniency in the matter of sentence may be considered, subject to the condition prohibiting the entry of the appellant/accused into the house of the victim.

8. In the instant case, the Special Court convicted the appellant/accused and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence underSection 354of theIPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offences underSections 10r/w 9(l), (m) and (n) of the PoCSO Act, and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months under each head. 9. In view of the rival submissions, the evidence available is scrutinised, and the same would not justify interference in the finding of conviction entered by the learned Special Judge. Therefore, while confirming the conviction imposed on the appellant/accused for the offences punishable underSection 354of theIPCas well as underSections 10r/w 9(l), (m) and (n) of the PoCSO Act, I am inclined to modify the sentence imposed on the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under r/w 9(l), (m) and (n) of the PoCSO Act, to the minimum permissible under law.

10. In the resul