The Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed a criminal appeal filed by a young man convicted of repeatedly raping a minor girl, holding that the trial court’s findings were backed by clear evidence and did not warrant interference. The court upheld the ten-year rigorous imprisonment awarded under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from Crime No. 105/2016 registered at Vellarikundu Police Station in Kasaragod district. The accused had been convicted by the Special Court for Atrocities Against Women and Children, Kasaragod, in October 2019.
Read also:- Gauhati High Court Quashes JMFC Notices, Clarifies BNSS Procedure on Pre-Cognizance Hearing of Accused
According to the prosecution, the accused subjected a 13-year-old girl to repeated sexual assault between September 2015 and February 2016. The incidents were alleged to have taken place inside the victim’s house, both at her old residence and later at a new house where the family shifted after the Onam festival.
The trial court found him guilty under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 read with Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. Compensation to the victim under the victim compensation scheme was also ordered.
Grounds Raised in Appeal
Challenging the conviction, the accused argued that the prosecution story was false and unreliable. A key plank of the defence was that the victim’s age had not been proved in accordance with law.
Read also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Bank Account Attachment of Former Directors in APVAT Recovery Case
The defence pointed to the birth certificate produced by the prosecution, claiming it did not name the child and could relate to the victim’s sibling. It was also argued that the physical layout of the house made the alleged incidents improbable, and that the accused’s young age at the time of the offence merited a lenient view on sentence.
Court’s Observation on Evidence
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas examined the testimony of the victim, her mother, and the medical evidence. The court noted that the victim’s deposition was consistent, detailed, and free from exaggeration.
“The testimony of the victim was unwavering and medically corroborated,” the court observed, adding that there was no reason to disbelieve her account merely because the incidents occurred inside the house.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Orders Developer to Hand Over Possession in Long-Stalled MHADA Redevelopment Dispute
The medical evidence confirmed that the victim’s hymen was torn and was consistent with sexual assault. The court held that once the foundational facts were proved, the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act came into play against the accused.
Determination of the Victim’s Age
A significant part of the judgment dealt with the question of age. The court acknowledged that while juvenile justice laws provide guidance on age determination, they are not the sole means of proving a victim’s age in POCSO cases.
The victim had clearly stated her date of birth as 18 August 2002, a fact that matched the birth certificate produced. Importantly, this assertion was never challenged during cross-examination.
Read also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court Refuses to Secure Demurrage Claim, Dismisses Zion Shipping’s Arbitration Appeal
The court remarked that absence of the child’s name in a birth certificate is common and cannot, by itself, discredit the document.
“Considering the unchallenged testimony of the victim and the certificate produced, the prosecution has proved that the victim was a minor at the relevant time,” the judge noted.
Final Decision
Finding no merit in the appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court. The direction to pay compensation to the victim was also sustained.
With these findings, the criminal appeal was dismissed in full, bringing the proceedings to a close at the appellate stage.
Case Title:- Suresh K. v. State of Kerala
Case No:- Crl. A. No. 651 of 2021
