Xxx vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 8450 Ker

Kerala High Court

Xxx vs State Of Kerala on 8 September, 2025

                                       ​1​                   ​2025:KER:66335​
  ​Crl.A. No. 352 of 2021​



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM​
                   ​

                                    PRESENT​
                                    ​

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V​
            ​

                                       &​
                                       ​

                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR​
                   ​

                 TH​
                 ​
    MONDAY, THE 8​
    ​                DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 17TH BHADRA,​​
                     ​                                    1947​

                             CRL.A NO. 352 OF 2021​
                             ​



AGAINST​ ​
​        THE​ ​
              JUDGMENT​ ​
                        DATED​ ​
                               30.03.2019​​
                                          IN​ ​
                                              SC​ ​
                                                  NO.62​ ​
                                                         OF​ ​
                                                             2017​ ​
                                                                   OF​
SPECIAL COURT UNDER POCSO ACT, MANJERI​
​

APPELLANT/ACCUSED:​
​

                  ​XX​
                  X
                  XXXX​
                  ​

                  BY ADV SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)​
                  ​

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:​

​

​TATE OF KERALA​ S REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,​ ​ ERNNAKULAM- 682 031​ ​

BY ADV. BINDU O.V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR​ ​ ADV. AMBIKA DEVI, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER​ ​

​HIS​ ​ T CRIMINAL​ ​ APPEAL​ ​ HAVING​ ​ COME​ ​ UP​ ​ FOR​ ​ FINAL​ ​ HEARING​ ​ ON​ 08.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:​ ​ ​2​ ​2025:KER:66335​ ​Crl.A. No. 352 of 2021​

​J U D G M E N T​

​Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.​

​This​ ​appeal,​ ​preferred​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​374(2)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Code​ ​of​ ​Criminal​

​Procedure​​1973,​​is​​directed​​against​​the​​judgment​​dated​​30.03.2019​ ​in​​S.C.​​No.​​62​

​of​ ​2017​ ​passed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Special​ ​Court​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Trial​ ​of​ ​Offences​ ​against​ ​Children​

​(Additional​ ​Sessions​​Court-​​I),​​Manjeri.​​In​​the​​aforesaid​​case,​​he​​was​​charged​​for​

​having​ ​committed​ ​offences​ ​punishable​ ​under​ ​Sections​ ​376(2)​ ​(f),​ ​(i),​ ​506​ ​(ii)​ ​of​

​the​​IPC​​and​​Sections​​5(l),​​(m),​​(n)​​r/w.​​6​​of​​the​​Protection​​of​​Children​​from​​Sexual​

​Offences​ ​Act,​ ​2012.​ ​By​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​judgment,​ ​he​ ​was​ ​found​ ​guilty​ ​of​ ​the​

​offences​​punishable​​under​​Sections​​376(2)(f)(i)(n)​​of​​the​​IPC,​​Section​​6​​(l)​​(m)​​(n)​

​of​ ​the​ ​POCSO​ ​Act,​ ​as​ ​per​ ​Section​ ​235(2)​ ​of​ ​Cr.P.C​ ​and​ ​sentenced​ ​to​ ​undergo​

​imprisonment​​for​​life​​for​​the​​offence​​under​​Section​​376(2)​​of​​the​​IPC​​and​​to​​pay​​a​

​fine​​of​​Rs.​​1,00,000/-​​with​​a​​default​​clause.​​The​​above​​finding​​of​​guilt,​​conviction​

​and sentence is under challenge in this appeal.​

​Brief Statement of Facts​

​2.​ ​The​ ​appellant​ ​is​​the​​father​​of​​the​​survivor​​child,​​who​​was​​aged​​about​

​12​​years​​at​​the​​time​​of​​registering​​the​​crime​​on​​02.08.2016.​​PW2​​is​​the​​wife​​of​​the​

​appellant.​ ​She​ ​had​ ​a​ ​minor​ ​son​ ​from​ ​her​ ​marriage​ ​with​ ​the​ ​appellant.​ ​One​ ​day​

​prior​ ​to​ ​the​ ​registration​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crime,​ ​the​ ​child​ ​was​ ​taken​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Government​

​Ayurvedic​ ​Dispensary,​ ​where​ ​PW1,​ ​an​ ​Ayurvedic​ ​Physician,​ ​was​ ​working.​ ​Upon​ ​3​ ​2025:KER:66335​ ​Crl.A. No. 352 of 2021​

​hearing​​the​​complaint,​​the​​doctor​​sensed​​that​​something​​was​​amiss​​and​​informed​

​the​​Childline​​authorities​​and​​members​​of​​the​​Child​​Welfare​​Committee.​​A​​member​

​of​ ​Childline​ ​then​ ​alerted​ ​the​ ​police.​ ​The​ ​statement​ ​of​ ​the​ ​child​ ​was​ ​recorded​​on​

​02.08.2016​​by​​PW10,​​a​​Woman​​Police​​Constable,​​and​​based​​on​​the​​same,​​Ext.​​P9​

​FIR​ ​was​ ​registered.​ ​The​​FIS​​was​​then​​transmitted​​to​​the​​Sub-Inspector​​of​​Police,​

​Changramkulam. On the basis of Ext. P1, Ext. P9 FIR was registered.​

​3.​ ​The​​investigation​​was​​initially​​conducted​​by​​the​​Sub-Inspector​​of​​Police,​

​Changramkulam​ ​Police​ ​Station​ ​(PW12).​ ​Thereafter,​ ​the​ ​same​ ​was​ ​taken​ ​over​ ​by​

​the​​Circle​​Inspector​​of​​Police,​​Ponnani​​(PW13),​​on​​03.08.2016.​​He​​prepared​​Ext.P8​

​Scene​​Mahazar,​​as​​per​​which​​he​​seized​​MOs​​1​​and​​2​​clothes​​worn​​by​​the​​survivor.​

​Samples​ ​were​ ​taken​ ​for​ ​the​ ​purpose​ ​of​ ​Forensic​ ​analysis​ ​and​ ​the​ ​same​ ​was​

​forwarded​​as​​per​​Ext.P11​​Forwarding​​Note.​​Since,​​from​​the​​statement​​of​​the​​child,​

​it​ ​was​ ​revealed​ ​that​ ​the​ ​initial​ ​incident​ ​had​ ​taken​ ​place​ ​at​ ​Kumaranalloor,​ ​in​ ​an​

​unnumbered​​house​​near​​to​​house​​bearing​​No.​​15/399​​situated​​within​​the​​limits​​of​

​Kakkur​ ​Grama​ ​Panchayat​ ​and​ ​prepared​ ​Ext.P12​ ​Scene​ ​Mahazar.​ ​Thereafter,​ ​the​

​accused​ ​was​​arrested​​at​​Cheruvallur​​at​​01.00​​p.m.​​Ext.P13​​arrest​​memo​​and​​Ext.​

​P14​​inspection​​memo​​evidences​​the​​same.​​The​​accused​​was​​then​​produced​​before​

​the​ ​Taluk​ ​Headquarters​ ​Hospital,​ ​Ponnani​ ​and​ ​Ext.P3​ ​Potency​ ​Certificate​ ​was​

​obtained.​ ​Ext.P15​ ​report​ ​was​​submitted​​before​​the​​court,​​incorporating​​the​​name​

​of​​the​​accused​​and​​he​​was​​remanded​​on​​production​​before​​the​​Court.​​Steps​​were​

​taken​ ​to​ ​get​ ​the​ ​scene​ ​plans​ ​prepared​ ​and​ ​also​ ​to​ ​record​ ​the​ ​statement​ ​of​ ​the​ ​4​ ​2025:KER:66335​ ​Crl.A. No. 352 of 2021​

​child​ ​by​ ​the​ ​learned​​Magistrate​​in​​terms​​of​​section​​25​​of​​the​​POCSO​​Act.​​He​​also​

​took​ ​measures​ ​to​ ​obtain​ ​Exhibit​ ​P7​ ​School​ ​Admission​ ​Register​ ​from​ ​the​

​Darussalam​ ​English​ ​Medium​​Schoo​​l​,​​where​​the​​child​​was​​pursuing​​her​​education.​

​After​ ​completion​ ​of​ ​the​ ​investigation,​ ​the​ ​PW15,​ ​the​ ​Circle​ ​Inspector​ ​of​ ​Police​

​Ponnani, laid the final report before the court.​

​Evidence Tendered​

​4.​ ​To​ ​prove​​its​​case,​​the​​prosecution​​examined​​15​​witnesses​​as​​PWs​​1​​to​

​15,​ ​and​ ​through​ ​them​ ​Exts.P1​ ​to​ ​P17​ ​were​ ​exhibited​ ​and​ ​marked.​ ​MOs​ ​1​ ​to​ ​3​

​were​ ​produced​ ​and​ ​identified.​ ​After​ ​the​ ​close​ ​of​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​evidence,​ ​the​

​incriminating​ ​materials​ ​were​ ​put​ ​to​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​313(1)(b)​ ​of​ ​the​

​Cr.P.C.​ ​He​ ​denied​ ​the​ ​circumstances​ ​and​ ​maintained​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​innocent.​ ​As​

​there​​was​​no​​scope​​for​​acquitting​​the​​accused​​under​​Section​​232​​of​​the​​Cr.P.C.,​​he​

​was asked to let in defence evidence. No evidence was adduced by the defence.​

​Contentions of the appellant:​

​5.​ ​Sri​ ​Johnson,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​appellant,​

​submitted​​that​​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​erred​​in​​arriving​​at​​the​​finding​​of​​guilt,​

​as​ ​there​ ​was​ ​no​ ​legal​ ​evidence​ ​linking​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​to​ ​the​ ​crime.​ ​He​ ​further​

​contended​ ​that​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​had​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​the​ ​age​ ​of​ ​the​ ​child​ ​in​

​accordance​ ​with​ ​law.​ ​He​ ​argued​ ​that​ ​the​ ​judgment​ ​passed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​5​ ​2025:KER:66335​ ​Crl.A. No. 352 of 2021​

​Sessions Judge be overturned by extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant​

​Submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor​

​6.​ ​Smt.​ ​Bindu​ ​O.V.,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Public​ ​Prosecutor,​ ​opposed​ ​the​

​submissions​ ​advanced​ ​by​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​submitted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​learned​

​Public​ ​Prosecutor​ ​that​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​is​ ​none​ ​other​ ​than​ ​the​ ​father​ ​of​ ​the​ ​minor​

​child,​ ​who​ ​was​ ​just​ ​10​ ​years​ ​of​ ​age​ ​when​ ​she​ ​was​ ​subjected​ ​to​ ​brutal​ ​acts​ ​of​

​sexual​​abuse.​​It​​is​​submitted​​that​​the​​appellant​​has​​not​​challenged​​the​​evidence​​of​

​the​ ​School​ ​Principal,​ ​who​ ​produced​ ​the​ ​certificate​ ​showing​ ​her​ ​age​ ​and​ ​the​

​positive​ ​assertion​ ​by​ ​the​ ​mother.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​medical​ ​examination​

​report​ ​of​ ​the​ ​child​ ​who​ ​had​ ​not​ ​attained​ ​puberty​ ​reveals​ ​that​ ​she​ ​has​ ​been​

​subjected​ ​to​ ​penetrative​ ​sexual​ ​abuse​ ​as​ ​her​ ​hymen​ ​was​ ​absent.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​no​

​reason​​to​​doubt​​the​​sterling​​version​​of​​the​​survivor​​and​​her​​mother,​​which​​stands​

​corroborated​ ​by​ ​the​ ​other​ ​evidence.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​urged​ ​that​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​has​

​succeeded in bringing home the guilt as against the appellant.​

​7.​ ​We​ ​have​ ​carefully​ ​considered​ ​the​ ​submissions​ ​advanced​ ​and​

​have carefully gone through the records.​

​The evidence let in:​

​8.​ ​PW1​ ​is​ ​the​ ​Medical​ ​Officer​ ​attached​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Government​

​Ayurvedic​​Dispensary,​​Nannammukku.​​He​​stated​​that​​the​​Dispensary​​is​​situated​​in​ ​6​ ​2025:KER:66335​ ​Crl.A. No. 352 of 2021​

​a​ ​place​ ​called​ ​Thengil.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​him,​ ​PW3​ ​Raihanath,​ ​the​ ​mother​ ​of​ ​the​

​survivor,​ ​had​ ​approached​ ​him​ ​and​ ​at​ ​about​ ​1:30​ ​p.m​ ​along​ ​with​ ​PW2,​ ​the​

​survivor,​ ​who​ ​was​ ​found​ ​to​ ​be​​aged​​about​​10​​years​​of​​age.​​He​​was​​told​​that​​the​

​child​ ​was​ ​suffering​ ​from​ ​urinary​ ​incontinence​ ​and​ ​that​ ​she​ ​was​ ​studying​ ​in​ ​an​

​orphanage.​ ​When​ ​he​ ​asked​ ​the​ ​mother​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​child​ ​could​ ​be​ ​permitted​ ​to​

​stay​​in​​her​​parental​​home,​​the​​mother​​told​​him​​that​​the​​child​​had​​developed​​some​

​bad​​habits.​​She​​stated​​to​​the​​doctor​​that​​the​​child​​used​​to​​commit​​certain​​bad​​acts​

​with​ ​her​ ​father.​ ​He​ ​then​ ​proceeded​ ​to​ ​ask​ ​the​ ​child,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​child​ ​is​ ​alleged​ ​to​

​have​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​her​ ​father​ ​used​ ​to​ ​force​ ​her​​to​​do​​certain​​bad​​things.​​However,​

​the​​child​​did​​not​​clearly​​specify​​what​​those​​bad​​things​​were.​​The​​doctor​​informed​

​the​ ​mother​ ​that​ ​the​ ​child​ ​would​ ​require​ ​a​ ​detailed​ ​evaluation​ ​and​​that​​her​​urine​

​needed​ ​to​ ​be​ ​tested.​ ​He​ ​immediately​ ​contacted​ ​the​ ​Childline​ ​authorities​ ​and​

​informed​​them​​about​​the​​incident.​​In​​cross-examination,​​he​​admitted​​that​​he​​had​

​not examined the body or conducted any physical examination.​

​9.​ ​PW2​ ​is​ ​the​ ​survivor​ ​herself.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Session​ ​Judge​

​conducted​ ​a​ ​voir​ ​dire​ ​examination​ ​to​ ​assess​ ​the​ ​intelligence​ ​and​ ​her​ ​capacity​ ​to​

​rationally​​answer​​the​​questions​​put​​to​​her.​​The​​child​​gave​​rational​​answers​​to​​the​

​questions,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​court​ ​concluded​ ​that​ ​she​ ​is​ ​competent​ ​to​ ​testify.​ ​In​

​chief-examination,​ ​she​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​she​ ​had​ ​a​ ​younger​ ​brother​ ​by​ ​name​ ​Raihan,​

​who​ ​is​ ​2​ ​years​ ​of​ ​age.​ ​She​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​she​ ​used​ ​to​ ​stay​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Darussalam​

​Orphanage​ ​while​ ​she​ ​was​ ​studying​ ​in​ ​the​ ​VI​ ​Std.​ ​Her​​mother​​was​​not​​employed​ ​7​ ​2025:KER:66335​ ​Crl.A. No. 352 of 2021​

​then.​ ​She​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​her​ ​father,​ ​mother,​ ​herself​ ​and​ ​a​ ​younger​ ​brother​ ​used​ ​to​

​stay​​at​​a​​place​​called​​Kumaranalloor.​​She​​also​​stated​​that​​her​​father​​used​​to​​abuse​

​her​​while​​they​​stayed​​at​​Kumaranalloor,​​and​​during​​that​​period,​​she​​was​​studying​

​in​​the​​IV​​Std.​​They​​started​​living​​in​​a​​place​​called​​Thengil​​when​​she​​was​​studying​

​in​ ​the​ ​VI​ ​Standard.​ ​According​​to​​her,​​her​​father​​used​​to​​stay​​in​​a​​separate​​room.​

​She,​ ​along​ ​with​ ​her​ ​mother​ ​and​ ​younger​ ​brother,​ ​used​ ​to​ ​stay​ ​in​ ​another​​room.​

​She​​stated​​that​​after​​her​​mother​​slept,​​her​​father​​used​​to​​pick​​her​​up​​and​​take​​her​

​to​ ​his​ ​room,​ ​and​ ​thereafter,​ ​he​ ​used​ ​to​ ​subject​ ​her​ ​to​ ​sexual​ ​abuse.​ ​She​

​specifically​​stated​​that​​he​​used​​to​​lick​​her​​genitals​​and​​thereafter​​put​​his​​penis​​into​

​her​​vagina.​​She​​stated​​that​​she​​used​​to​​feel​​pain,​​and​​when​​she​​cried,​​her​​father​

​used​ ​to​ ​silence​ ​her​ ​by​ ​gagging​ ​her​ ​mouth.​ ​She​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​she​ ​was​ ​threatened​

​that​ ​if​ ​she​ ​were​ ​to​ ​divulge​ ​the​ ​incident​ ​to​ ​any​ ​person,​ ​she​​would​​be​​done​​away​

​with.​ ​She​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​her​ ​father​ ​used​ ​to​ ​commit​​the​​aforesaid​​act​​very​​regularly.​

​She​​stated​​that​​her​​mother​​came​​to​​know​​about​​the​​incident​​while​​giving​​bath​​to​

​her.​​She​​told​​her​​mother​​that​​she​​was​​having​​pain​​in​​her​​private​​parts.​​When​​her​

​mother​ ​asked​ ​as​ ​to​ ​how​ ​she​ ​suffered​​the​​injury,​​she​​told​​her​​about​​the​​incident.​

​She​​stated​​that​​she​​was​​taken​​to​​the​​Thengil​​Hospital​​by​​her​​mother.​​Her​​mother​

​disclosed​ ​the​ ​incident​ ​to​ ​the​ ​doctor,​ ​and​ ​from​​there​​she​​was​​taken​​to​​the​​Mahila​

​Mandiram,​ ​Tavannur​ ​and​​to​​the​​Police​​Station.​​She​​stated​​that​​she​​had​​given​​the​

​FI​​statement​​to​​the​​police​​and​​identified​​the​​same.​​Thereafter,​​she​​stated​​that​​she​

​was​ ​taken​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Ponnani​ ​Hospital​ ​and​ ​the​ ​lady​​doctor​​examined​​her.​​The​​police​ ​8​ ​2025:KER:66335​ ​Crl.A. No. 352 of 2021​

​were​​present​​when​​she​​was​​examined.​​She​​stated​​that​​she​​has​​given​​a​​Statement​

​to​​the​​Magistrate.​​She​​identified​​the​​clothes​​which​​were​​shown​​to​​her​​as​​MOs​​1​​to​

​3.​ ​In​ ​cross-examination,​ ​she​​stated​​that​​she​​had​​gone​​to​​Bangalore​​and​​she​​had​

​occasion​​to​​witness​​her​​father​​beating​​her​​mother.​​She​​stated​​that​​her​​father​​used​

​to​​drink​​alcohol​​and​​that​​he​​used​​to​​beat​​her​​and​​her​​mother​​as​​well.​​She​​stated​

​that​ ​she​ ​had​ ​not​ ​disclosed​ ​the​ ​incident​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Usthad​ ​at​ ​the​ ​Darussalam​

​Orphanage.​ ​She​ ​denied​ ​that​ ​she​ ​was​ ​stating​ ​a​ ​falsehood​ ​at​ ​the​ ​instance​ ​of​ ​her​

​mother.​

​10.​ ​The​​mother​​of​​PW2​​was​​examined​​as​​PW3.​​She​​also​​stated​​that​

​they​ ​used​ ​to​ ​stay​ ​in​ ​a​ ​Quarters​ ​at​ ​Thengil,​ ​and​ ​prior​ ​to​ ​the​ ​same,​ ​they​​used​​to​

​stay​ ​at​ ​Kumaranalloor.​​According​​to​​her,​​she​​identified​​the​​survivor​​as​​well​​as​​the​

​accused​ ​who​ ​was​ ​standing​ ​on​​the​​dock.​​She​​stated​​that​​she​​has​​another​​child​​in​

​her​​marriage​​with​​the​​appellant​​and​​that​​he​​was​​just​​2​​years​​of​​age.​​According​​to​

​her,​​the​​date​​of​​birth​​of​​the​​survivor​​is​​on​​05.11.2005.​ ​She​​stated​​that​​she​​came​

​to​ ​know​ ​about​ ​the​ ​molestation​ ​of​ ​her​ ​child​ ​by​ ​her​ ​husband​ ​while​ ​they​ ​were​

​residing​ ​at​ ​Thengil.​ ​She​ ​also​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​it​ ​was​ ​while​ ​bathing​ ​the​ ​child​ ​that​ ​the​

​child​​disclosed​​the​​abuse​​she​​had​​been​​subjected​​to​​by​​her​​father.​​She​​added​​that​

​she​​asked​​her​​husband​​about​​the​​molestation​​and​​that​​he​​physically​​assaulted​​her.​

​In​ ​cross-examination,​ ​she​ ​stated​ ​that​​at​​the​​time​​of​​marriage​​with​​the​​appellant,​

​they​ ​had​ ​resided​ ​in​ ​a​ ​place​ ​called​​'Changaramkulam'.​​She​​also​​admitted​​that​​she​

​had​​stayed​​with​​her​​husband​​in​​Bangalore​​for​​4-5​​years.​​Nothing​​was​​brought​​out​ ​9​ ​2025:KER:66335​ ​Crl.A. No. 352 of 2021​

​in cross-examination by the appellant.​

​11.​ ​PW4​ ​is​ ​the​ ​landlord​ ​of​ ​the​ ​house​ ​at​ ​Thengilapalli,​ ​where​ ​the​

​appellant​ ​and​ ​his​ ​family​ ​stayed​ ​on​ ​a​ ​rent​​of​​₹2,000​​per​​mensum.​​He​​stated​​that​

​they had only stayed there for 6 months.​

​12.​ ​PW5​ ​is​ ​Dr.​ ​Ansar,​ ​who​ ​had​ ​examined​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​and​ ​issued​

​Ext.​ ​P3​ ​Potency​ ​Certificate.​ ​He​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​there​ ​is​ ​nothing​ ​to​ ​show​ ​that​ ​he​ ​is​

​incapable of performing the sexual act.​

​13.​ ​PW6​ ​is​ ​one​ ​K.K.​ ​Rajan,​ ​who​ ​is​ ​the​ ​Secretary​ ​of​ ​the​

​Nannammukku Gramapanchayat, and he had issued Ext.P4 Ownership Certificate.​

​14.​ ​PW7​ ​is​ ​the​ ​Village​ ​Officer​​of​​Nannammukku,​​who​​prepared​​Ext.​

​P5 sketch.​

​15.​ ​PW8​ ​is​ ​Jojo​ ​Sathyadas,​ ​the​ ​Village​ ​Officer​ ​of​ ​Kappoor,​ ​who​

​prepared Ext.P6 sketch of the Kumaranalloor property.​

​16.​ ​PW9​ ​is​ ​the​ ​Principal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Darussalam​​English​​Medium​​School.​

​He​ ​stated​ ​that,​ ​as​ ​per​ ​the​​Register​​maintained​​in​​the​​school,​​the​​date​​of​​birth​​of​

​the​ ​child​ ​is​ ​05.11.2005,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​same​ ​was​ ​marked​ ​as​ ​Ext.P7.​ ​There​ ​was​ ​no​

​challenge by the accused with respect to Ext P7.​

​17.​ ​PW10​ ​is​ ​Elamma​ ​George,​ ​the​ ​Woman​ ​Police​ ​Constable​ ​of​ ​the​ ​10​ ​2025:KER:66335​ ​Crl.A. No. 352 of 2021​

​Changaramkulam​ ​Police​ ​Station,​ ​who​ ​recorded​ ​the​ ​statement​ ​of​ ​the​​child,​​which​

​was marked as Ext.P1.​

​18.​ ​PW11​ ​is​ ​Vishwanathan,​ ​who​ ​was​ ​an​ ​attestor​ ​to​ ​Ext.​ ​P8​ ​Scene​

​Mahazar.​

​19.​ ​PW12​ ​is​ ​Baby​ ​K.G.,​ ​the​ ​Station​ ​House​ ​Officer​ ​of​ ​the​

​Changaramkulam Police Station, who registered Ext.P9 FIR.​

​20.​ ​PW14​​is​​Dr.​​Sajida​​P.K.,​​the​​Casualty​​Medical​​Officer​​of​​the​​Taluk​

​Headquarters​​Hospital,​​Ponnani.​​She​​stated​​that​​she​​had​​examined​​the​​child​​when​

​she​ ​was​ ​brought​ ​as​ ​per​ ​the​ ​requisition​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Sub​ ​Inspector​ ​of​ ​Police,​

​Changaramkulam​​Police​​Station.​​The​​child​​had​​told​​her​​that​​she​​was​​threatened​​by​

​her​​father,​​closed​​her​​mouth​​and​​penetrated​​his​​penis​​into​​her​​vagina.​​She​​stated​

​that​ ​she​ ​had​ ​pain​ ​during​ ​urination.​ ​She​ ​also​ ​added​ ​that​ ​the​ ​hymen​ ​of​ ​the​ ​child​

​was​ ​partially​ ​torn​ ​at​ ​6​ ​o'clock​ ​position​ ​and​ ​the​ ​hymen​ ​was​ ​healing.​ ​Her​ ​opinion​

​was​ ​that​ ​the​ ​finding​ ​was​ ​consistent​ ​with​ ​the​ ​history​​of​​sexual​​assault,​​and​​there​

​was​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​past​ ​vaginal​ ​penetration.​ ​The​ ​accused​ ​did​ ​not​ ​care​ ​to​

​cross-examine the doctor.​

​Analysis of evidence​

​21.​ ​The​​first​​question​​is​​whether​​PW2​​is​​a​​child​​below​​12​​years​​as​​on​

​the​ ​date​ ​of​ ​the​ ​alleged​ ​occurrence.​ ​She​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​she​ ​was​ ​studying​ ​in​ ​the​ ​IV​ ​11​ ​2025:KER:66335​ ​Crl.A. No. 352 of 2021​

​Standard​​when​​she​​was​​first​​abused​​and​​this​​was​​continued​​till​​she​​was​​in​​the​​VI​

​standard.​ ​PW3,​ ​the​ ​mother​ ​of​ ​the​ ​child​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​the​ ​date​ ​of​ ​birth​ ​of​ ​her​

​daughter​ ​is​ ​5.11.2005​ ​and​ ​that​ ​only​ ​late​ ​in​ ​November​ ​of​ ​the​ ​said​ ​year​ ​that​ ​she​

​would​​turn​​12​​years​​of​​age.​​This​​was​​not​​challenged​​by​​the​​appellant,​​who​​is​​the​

​father​ ​of​ ​the​ ​child.​ ​The​ ​Principal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​School​ ​who​ ​was​ ​examined​ ​as​ ​PW9​

​produced​​the​​admission​​register​​and​​he​​stated​​that​​the​​date​​of​​birth​​of​​the​​child​​is​

​5.11.2005.​ ​He​ ​was​ ​not​ ​cross​ ​examined​ ​by​ ​the​ ​appellant.​ ​In​ ​Jarnail​ ​Singh​ ​v.​

​State​ ​of​ ​Haryana​​1​,​ ​ ​the​​Apex​​Court​​has​​held​​that​​even​​though​​the​​rules​​framed​

​under​ ​the​ ​Juvenile​ ​Justice​ ​(Care​ ​and​ ​Protection​ ​of​ ​Children)​ ​Act,​ ​2000,​ ​apply​

​strictly​ ​only​ ​for​ ​determination​ ​of​ ​the​ ​age​ ​of​ ​a​ ​child​ ​in​ ​conflict​ ​with​ ​law,​ ​the​

​statutory​ ​provisions​ ​therein​ ​can​ ​certainly​ ​be​​the​​basis​​for​​determining​​the​​age​​of​

​even​​a​​child​​who​​is​​a​​victim​​of​​crime,​​for​​there​​is​​hardly​​any​​difference​​insofar​​as​

​the​​issue​​of​​minority​​is​​concerned,​​between​​a​​child​​in​​conflict​​with​​law​​and​​a​​child​

​who​​is​​a​​victim​​of​​a​​crime.​​In​​view​​of​​the​​law​​laid​​down​​above​​and​​in​​the​​light​​of​

​the​ ​evidence​ ​let​ ​in,​ ​it​ ​can​ ​safely​ ​be​ ​held​ ​that​ ​the​ ​date​ ​of​ ​birth​ ​of​ ​the​ ​child​ ​is​

​5.11.2005 and that she would have turned 12 years of age only on 5.11.2017.​

​22.​ ​The​ ​next​ ​question​ ​is​ ​whether​ ​there​ ​is​ ​any​ ​reason​ ​to​ ​doubt​ ​the​

​version​​of​​the​​survivor.​​She​​has​​stated​​in​​graphic​​detail​​the​​serious​​nature​​of​​abuse​

​that​​she​​was​​subjected​​to​​by​​her​​father.​​Nothing​​was​​brought​​out​​by​​the​​defence​

​to​​doubt​​her​​version​​with​​regard​​to​​the​​acts​​perpetrated​​on​​her​​by​​her​​own​​father.​

​1​ ​[(​​2013) 7 SCC 263]​ ​12​ ​2025:KER:66335​ ​Crl.A. No. 352 of 2021​

​Of​​course​​there​​is​​some​​delay​​in​​setting​​the​​law​​in​​motion.​​However,​​it​​needs​​to​​be​

​borne​ ​in​ ​mind​ ​that​ ​the​ ​survivor​ ​was​ ​just​ ​under​ ​10​ ​years​ ​of​ ​age​ ​and​ ​she​ ​was​

​threatened​ ​and​​intimidated​​by​​the​​person​​who​​was​​bound​​to​​protect​​her.​​As​​held​

​by​ ​the​ ​Apex​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Punjab​ ​v.​ ​Gurmit​ ​Singh​​2​​,​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​the​

​victim​ ​of​ ​sexual​ ​assault​ ​is​ ​enough​ ​for​ ​conviction​ ​and​ ​it​ ​does​ ​not​ ​require​ ​any​

​corroboration​ ​unless​ ​there​ ​are​ ​compelling​ ​reasons​​for​​seeking​​corroboration.​​The​

​court​ ​may​ ​look​ ​for​ ​some​ ​assurances​ ​of​ ​her​ ​statement​ ​to​ ​satisfy​ ​judicial​

​conscience.​ ​The​ ​statement​ ​of​ ​the​ ​prosecutrix​ ​is​ ​more​ ​reliable​ ​than​ ​that​ ​of​ ​an​

​injured​​witness​​as​​she​​is​​not​​an​​accomplice.​​The​​Court​​further​​held​​that​​the​​delay​

​in​ ​filing​ ​FIR​ ​for​ ​sexual​ ​offence​ ​may​ ​not​ ​be​ ​even​​properly​​explained,​​but​​if​​found​

​natural,​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​given​ ​any​ ​benefit​ ​thereof.​ ​We​ ​find​ ​that​ ​the​

​evidence​ ​of​ ​the​ ​mother​ ​has​ ​corroborated​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​PW2​ ​in​ ​material​

​particulars.​

​23.​ ​The​ ​next​ ​piece​ ​of​ ​evidence​ ​which​ ​was​ ​relied​ ​on​​by​​the​​learned​

​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​is​ ​the​ ​medical​ ​examination​ ​report​ ​of​ ​the​ ​survivor.​ ​PW14,​ ​after​

​examining​ ​the​ ​child​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​the​ ​hymen​ ​of​ ​the​ ​child​ ​was​ ​partially​ ​torn​ ​at​ ​6​

​o'clock​​position​​and​​the​​hymen​​was​​healing.​​Her​​opinion​​was​​that​​the​​finding​​was​

​consistent​ ​with​ ​the​ ​history​ ​of​ ​sexual​ ​assault,​ ​and​ ​there​ ​was​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​past​

​vaginal penetration. The accused did not even care to cross-examine the doctor.​

​2​ ​[1996 (2) SCC 384]​ ​13​ ​2025:KER:66335​ ​Crl.A. No. 352 of 2021​

​Conclusion​

​24.​ ​Having​ ​carefully​ ​evaluated​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​PW2​ ​in​ ​the​ ​light​ ​of​

​the​ ​medical​ ​evidence,​ ​we​ ​find​ ​the​ ​same​ ​to​ ​be​ ​credible,​​trustworthy​​and​​reliable.​

​We​ ​hold​ ​that​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​has​ ​rightly​ ​relied​ ​on​ ​the​ ​evidence​

​tendered​ ​by​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​to​ ​arrive​ ​at​ ​the​ ​finding​ ​of​ ​guilt.​ ​The​ ​contentions​

​fervently​ ​raised​ ​by​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​to​​assail​​the​​finding​​of​​guilt​​are​​meritless​

​and​ ​hence​ ​rejected.​ ​We​ ​dismiss​ ​this​ ​appeal,​ ​confirming​ ​the​ ​finding​ ​of​ ​guilt,​

​conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge.​

​Before​ ​parting,​ ​we​ ​note​ ​that​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​33(8)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Protection​ ​of​

​Children​ ​from​ ​Sexual​ ​Offences​ ​Act,​ ​2012,​ ​the​ ​Special​ ​Court,​ ​in​ ​addition​ ​to​ ​the​

​punishment,​ ​is​ ​to​ ​order​ ​compensation​ ​to​ ​the​ ​child​ ​for​ ​any​ ​physical​ ​or​ ​mental​

​trauma​ ​or​ ​for​ ​immediate​ ​rehabilitation​ ​of​ ​such​ ​child.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​case​ ​on​ ​hand,​ ​the​

​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​has​​not​​chosen​​to​​do​​so.​​Under​​Section​​357A​​of​​the​​Cr.P.C,​

​the​ ​Victim​ ​Compensation​​Scheme​​is​​required​​to​​be​​formulated​​for​​the​​purpose​​of​

​disbursal​​of​​compensation.​ ​Under​​Section​​357A(2)​​of​​the​​Cr.P.C.,​​the​​District​​Legal​

​Services​ ​Authority​ ​or​ ​the​ ​State​ ​Legal​ ​Services​ ​Authority​ ​is​ ​required​ ​to​​determine​

​the​​quantum.​​We​​are​​of​​the​​view​​that​​this​​is​​a​​fit​​case​​where​​victim​​compensation​

​is​ ​to​ ​be​ ​granted​ ​to​ ​the​ ​victim​ ​child.​ ​In​ ​that​ ​view​ ​of​ ​the​ ​matter,​ ​there​ ​will​ ​be​ ​a​

​direction​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Kerala​ ​State​​Legal​​Services​​Authority​​to​​initiate​​appropriate​​steps​

​and​​determine​​the​​compensation​​to​​which​​the​​victim​​child​​is​​entitled​​to.​​A​​decision​

​shall​​be​​taken,​​at​​any​​rate,​​within​​a​​period​​of​​two​​months​​from​​today​​as​​mandated​ ​14​ ​2025:KER:66335​ ​Crl.A. No. 352 of 2021​

​under​​Section​​357(5)​​of​​the​​Cr.PC.,​​and​​the​​amount​​disbursed​​to​​the​​child​​within​​a​

​further period of one month.​

​Sd/-​

​RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,​ ​JUDGE​

​Sd/-​

​K.V. JAYAKUMAR,​ ​JUDGE​

​P​S ​ & APM/16/06/2025​