Back
2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 44986
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.HEMA, J
PUSHPANGADHAN,C.NO.5139,C.PRISON,TVM. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A 1423 2010
SUNIL J., K.S.SIVAKUMAR
Credible testimony from a victim of sexual offences can prevail despite time lapses and should be evaluated within the context of the psychological trauma experienced.
Headnote:
Conviction - Sexual Offences - IPC Section List - The court upheld the conviction under sections 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural offences), and 506(i) (criminal intimidation) of IPC, emphasizing the victim's credible testimony and the gravity of the offences committed against her.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for sexually abusing his stepdaughter, which began when she was 12 years old. After years of abuse and subsequent suicide attempt, she reported the incidents leading to the appellant's conviction under various sections of IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence presented by the victim credible, as corroborated by testimonies from other witnesses and the psychological impact on the victim, thus supporting the conviction of the appellant.
Issues: Whether the evidence of the victim was sufficient to uphold the conviction for sexual offenses against the appellant despite the time lapse between the incidents and the report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the victim's delayed reporting did not negate her credibility and that supportive testimony and medical evidence reinforced the conviction.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction of the appellant.
J U D G M E N T
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 376 , 377 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code (' IPC ' for short). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.38,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 5 years and 3 months.
2. According to prosecution, PW2 is the step daughter of appellant/accused. Her father died when she was very young and her mother started living with appellant. Since the age of 12 years, appellant used to sexually harass PW2 in various ways and he also committed rape on her and subjected her to unnatural offence. She was accommodated in a Convent, on her insistence for staying in a hostel. While she was undergoing Nursery Teachers' Training Course, by residing in the study house in the convent, she consumed poison on 8.2.2008 and she was taken to the hospital. The Mother Superior (PW1) gave first information statement (Ext.P1) before the police and F.I.R. was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was laid against accused.
3. Prosecution examined PW1 to PW16 and marked Exts.P1 to P20 and Mos.1 to 3 to prove the case. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence, but marked Ext.D1 birth certificate. According to accused, he was residing separately from victim's mother since past ten years. The complaint was made by PW2, as instructed by the persons in the convent. PW2's mother is also having enmity towards him. On an analysis of the evidence in detail, trial court found that accused committed various offences alleged against him. The suggestion made by the defence that PW2 was tutored to tell falsity, with a view to protect the reputation of the study house run by the convent was rejected.
4. The appellant was undefended and hence, Advocate Sri.Sunil.J was appointed as State Brief. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for accused argued that as per the evidence of PW2, the victim, there are only six instances of sexual harassment and all these happened, while she was studying in 6th Standard and earlier. Poison was consumed years thereafter, while she was studying as an inmate in a study house run by the convent.
5. At the time of incident, victim was undergoing Nursery Teachers' Training Course while she was a resident in the study house, after completion of her 10th Standard. The present case of prosecution is that she attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison because of the sexual harassment from the step father. According to accused's counsel, this version cannot be believed, because even according to PW2's statement, she was harassed only up to 6th Standard while she was residing with her step father. In her evidence, PW2 stated that her mother started to reside separately from the step father when she told her about the harassment. This was while she was studying in 6th Standard. The present allegations are made against appellant, only because PW2 was instructed by the authorities in the Convent to speak against the accused, with a view to protect their reputation,it is submitted.
6. To prove the prosecution case, prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PW2, the alleged victim. She was aged 18 years at the time of lodging the complaint. According to her, accused was her step father and he used to sexually harass her while she was living under the same roof along with her mother and siblings. The harassment started ever since she was very small, even before she attained puberty. The first incident occurred when she was decided to be taken to Sabarimala. Her mother (PW4) had to stay away from the house since she had menstrual period and on that occasion accused sexually abused her and he told her that this was necessary for going to Sabarimala.
7. PW2 deposed how and in what manner, accused had committed various sexual acts on her. Her evidence reveals that there was penetration, as required under Sections 375 and 377 of IPC . It is also clear from
