Kerala High Court
Siju.T.S vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2025
Author: Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Crl.A.No. 324 of 2024 :1: 2025:KER:71170
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 2ND ASWINA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 324 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.02.2019 IN SC NO.452 OF 2018
OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SIJU.T.S
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. SEBASTIAN, THUNIYAMBRAN HOUSE, KUTTOOR AMSOM,
PERUMVAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670306
BY ADV SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT. NEEMA.T.V.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON
24.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.No. 324 of 2024 :2: 2025:KER:71170
JUDGMENT
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
This appeal, preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973, is directed against the judgment dated 14.02.2019 in S.C. No.
452 of 2018 passed by the Special Judge for the Trial of Offences under the
POCSO Act, Thalassery. By the above judgment, the appellant herein was
found guilty of the offence under Section 5(l)(r) r/w. Section 6 and Section
9(i)(r) r/w. Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 (for brevity 'POCSO Act') and Sections 370(4), 370A(1), 376(2)(i),
506(i), 392 and 307 of the IPC. The appellant was sentenced:
(a) to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) for the offence
punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC, with a default
clause.
(b) to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) for the offence
punishable under Section 5(i) r/w. Section 6 of the POCSO Act,
with a default clause.
(c) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten(10) years and to pay a
fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) for the
offence punishable under Section 370(4) of the IPC, with a
Crl.A.No. 324 of 2024 :3: 2025:KER:71170
default clause.
(d) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay
a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) for
the offence punishable under Section 370A(1) of the IPC, with a
default clause.
(e) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten(10) years and to pay a
fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) for the
offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC, with a default
clause.
(f) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence
punishable under Section 506(i) of the IPC.
By this appeal, the appellant impugns the judgment passed by the learned
Sessions Judge on various grounds.
The Prosecution Case :
2. The survivor, aged 13 years, is the daughter of PW2 and was
pursuing her education at a school in Cherupuzha, where PW7 served as the
Headmaster. She was enrolled as a Student Police Cadet. On 03.02.2018, the
survivor participated in a parade that concluded around 12:30 p.m. The
accused, who was known to the survivor as he had previously worked with
her father, boarded the same bus in which the survivor was travelling home.
The accused initiated conversation by smiling at her and asking whether she
Crl.A.No. 324 of 2024 :4: 2025:KER:71170
was the daughter of her parents, whom he identified by name. This was done
to instill confidence in the mind of the child. After renewing the acquaintance,
the accused told the child that if she alighted at Madakkampoyil instead of
Kuttoor, she could reach home sooner. Persuaded by his words, the survivor
got down with him at Madakkampoyil. He then offered to escort her home
and led her along a pathway for about 20 minutes until they reached a
secluded rubber plantation. At that point, the survivor became apprehensive
and attempted to return. The accused, however, caught hold of her hand and
asked her "തരുമോ" (meaning, "will you give it to me"). When the survivor tried
to make good her escape, the accused gagged her and pressed on her breasts.
He then tied the neck of PW1 by using the belt of the bag, which was being
carried by her. He forced her to lie on the ground and, thereafter, removed her
white T-shirt, tracksuit, leggings, shimmie, and her panties. As the survivor
was menstruating, she kept a cloth inside her panties. The prosecution alleges
that after removing the clothes, the accused subjected her to rape by inserting
his penis into her vagina. It is further alleged that the hands of PW1 were tied
to a nearby tree by using the shawl worn by her. When the accused tried to
remove her earrings, she lost consciousness. When she regained her
consciousness after some time, the accused was found sitting nearby. She
hastily put on her clothes, and when she attempted to leave, the accused
threatened her with bodily harm and death if she disclosed the incident to
anyone. The survivor managed to escape and sought refuge in the house of her
schoolmate, Justin, where PW4 and other family members immediately took
her to her parents.
Crl.A.No. 324 of 2024 :5: 2025:KER:71170
Registration of Crime and Investigation
3. The survivor initially did not inform her parents that she had been
subjected to sexual abuse. She only stated that she had been chased, had
fallen, and had sustained injuries on various parts of her body. On the
following day, when she experienced pain in her private parts and on her face,
she disclosed the incident to her mother, who in turn conveyed the
information to her father (PW2). PW2 immediately contacted the child's
teacher, who assisted the family in contacting the police. The statement of the
child was recorded by PW16, Woman Police Constable attached to the
Peringome Police Station. Soon thereafter, Ext. P2, her statement under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was formally recorded.
Meanwhile, at 11:00 a.m. on 06.02.2018, the child was examined by PW9, a
Doctor attached to the Pariyaram Medical College. The medical examination
revealed a fresh tear of the hymen and bruises and scratch marks on the face,
buttocks, and waist region. The Doctor confirmed that the hymen was
ruptured.
4. On 05.02.2018, PW17, Sub-Inspector of Police, Peringome
Police Station, registered the First Information Report and took over the
investigation. After establishing the identity of the accused, he arrested him
the same day, as evidenced by Ext. P15 Arrest Memo. PW17 then visited the
scene of occurrence and prepared Ext. P3 Scene Mahazar. The clothes worn
by the victim were seized under Ext. P8 Mahazar. Pursuant to Ext. P12(a), a
Crl.A.No. 324 of 2024 :6: 2025:KER:71170
confession statement voluntarily furnished by the accused while in custody,
and acting on the information he provided, PW17 proceeded to Athulya
Jewellers, Cherupuzha, and seized gold ingots made by melting the two gold
earrings sold by the accused. Upon completion of the investigation, the final
report was laid before the jurisdictional court.
5. As per the charge, on 03.02.2018 at 1:40 p.m., the appellant, by
practising fraud and deception, persuaded the minor child to proceed with him
to a rubber plantation at Peringoor, with a view to sexually exploiting her and
thereafter, subjected her to penetrative sexual intercourse. When the child
resisted, the appellant attempted to murder the child. He is also alleged to
have stolen the earrings worn by the victim.
Evidence Tendered
6. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses as
PWs 1 to 17, and through them Exts.P1 to P20(a) were exhibited and marked.
MOs 1 to 7 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. No evidence was adduced by the defence.
The findings of the learned Sessions Judge:
7. The learned Sessions Judge, on an evaluation of the evidence,
came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the
Crl.A.No. 324 of 2024 :7: 2025:KER:71170
offences punishable under Sections 370(4), 370A(1), 506(i), 376(2)(i) and 392
of the IPC and offences punishable under Section 5(i) r/w. Section 6 of the
POCSO Act.
Contentions of the appellant:
8. Sri. Vivek Venugopal, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, contended that the learned Sessions Judge arrived at the finding of
guilt without properly appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
According to the learned counsel, the Court placed implicit reliance on the
testimony of PW1 to find the appellant guilty of the offence. It is urged that
the version of the survivor in Ext.P1 statement was at variance with the
statement given by her to PW9. A perusal of the survivor's evidence, it is
argued, reveals that she substantially embellished her version over time.
Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rai
Sandeep @ Deepu v. State of NCT of Delhi1, the learned counsel submitted
that, to conclude a witness is a "sterling witness," the paramount consideration
is the truthfulness and consistency of the witness's statement from the very
inception of the case through to its conclusion. In the present matter, it is
submitted that the victim has consistently improved her version, thereby
forfeiting the status of a sterling witness. If the evidence of PW1 is excluded,
there remains no material to connect the accused with the crime. It is further
submitted that the prosecution failed to prove that PW1 was studying in the
school and that she had occasion to attend school on a Saturday and return
[(2012) 8 SCC 21]
Crl.A.No. 324 of 2024 :8: 2025:KER:71170
home by bus at lunchtime. No independent witness was examined to establish
that PW1 had gone to school on the day of the alleged incident or that the
alleged occurrence took place after she attended school. The learned counsel
also contends that the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer
was deficient in several material particulars, and none of these aspects were
considered by the learned Sessions Judge before arriving at the finding of
guilt.
Submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor:
9. Smt. T.V. Nema, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that
the learned Sessions Judge evaluated the evidence in its proper perspective
and had rightly arrived at the finding of guilt. According to the learned
Prosecutor, the contentions advanced by the defence are without merit. She
pointed out that the testimony of the survivor, when read along with the
evidence of PWs 2 and 3 and the supporting medical evidence, clearly
establishes that the incident of brutal sexual assault occurred on 03.02.2018
and that there is absolutely no reason to doubt the version of the child.
10. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both
sides and have gone through the entire record.
Evaluation of the evidence of the witnesses:
11. The first issue is whether the prosecution has established the
age of the child. The mother of the child, examined as PW2, stated that PW1
Crl.A.No. 324 of 2024 :9: 2025:KER:71170
is her second child and was studying in the IX standard at the time of the
incident. PW1 herself deposed that she was 14 years old when the incident
occurred. The prosecution also examined PW15, the Registrar of Births and
Deaths, Payyanur Panchayat, who produced Ext. P13 birth certificate showing
the date of birth of PW1 as 16.05.2004. The defence did not dispute this fact
and no cross-examination or denial was directed to this aspect. In these
circumstances, it can be held beyond any shadow of doubt that PW1 was 14
years of age on 03.02.2018, the date of the incident.
12. We shall now deal with the evidence.
13. PW1 entered the witness box, and the learned Sessions Judge
first conducted a voir dire examination to ascertain her capacity to understand
the questions and give rational answers. The Court was satisfied that the child
was competent to testify. PW1 deposed that on 03.02.2018, a Saturday, she
attended a Student Police Cadet parade at her school in Cherupuzha, which
concluded at about 12:30 p.m. She boarded a bus to return home and noticed
the accused travelling in the same bus. She identified him as a person known
to her through her father. The accused engaged her in conversation, suggested
that she alight at Madakkampoyil instead of her usual stop at Kuttoor, and
assured her that she would reach home earlier. Believing him, she got down
with him at that stop. No other passengers alighted there. PW1 further stated
that the accused led her along a path through a rubber plantation for about
twenty minutes. When she became uneasy and tried to return, he restrained
her and threatened her with harm if she raised an alarm. She then graphically
Crl.A.No. 324 of 2024 :10 : 2025:KER:71170
described the sexual assault that followed, the injuries she suffered, and the
threats he made to prevent her from disclosing the incident. After the accused
left, she dressed and managed to escape, seeking refuge in the house of her
schoolmate Justin, where his family members took her to her parents. Initially,
she told her parents only that she had been chased and had fallen, causing
injuries. The following day, when she experienced pain in her private parts
and face, she disclosed the full incident to her mother, who informed her
father. PW1's statement was recorded by the Woman Police Constable
(PW16) and later under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as Ext. P2. She was
examined by PW9, the Doctor at Pariyaram Medical College, who noted a
fresh hymenal tear and multiple bruises and scratch marks on her face, neck,
waist, and buttocks. The medical findings corroborated her account. In
cross-examination, certain omissions in PW1's earlier statements to the Police
and the Doctor were highlighted, for example, that she had not initially stated
that the accused smiled at her or that specific items were used to restrain her.
PW1 explained these omissions and maintained the core of her account. She
also identified in Court the clothes she had worn and the accused as the person
who assaulted her.
14. PW2, the mother of the survivor, testified that she has two
children, of whom PW1 is the younger child. At the time of the incident on
03.02.2018, PW1 was studying in the IX Standard and was a Student Police
Cadet. PW2 stated that PW1 left home at 8:00 a.m. for training and returned
only between 3:15 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. On her return, PW2 noticed scratch
Crl.A.No. 324 of 2024 :11 : 2025:KER:71170
marks on PW1's cheeks, contusions on her nose, injuries on her neck, and
swelling of the lips. When questioned, PW1 initially stated that someone had
chased her and that she had fallen down, adding that her earrings were
missing. PW1 was accompanied at the time by the grandmother and uncle of
one Justin. Despite repeated enquiries, PW1 did not immediately disclose the
true cause of her injuries. She only mentioned that a person with a bandaged
leg had chased her. When PW2 specifically asked whether it was Siju, PW1
affirmed. PW2 further stated that the appellant had previously engaged in a
coconut-trading business with her husband. Later, PW1 confided in her
mother about the incident, after which PW2 informed her husband and
contacted the schoolteacher, who provided the telephone number of a police
officer. The police arrived, and PW1 led them to the scene of the crime. PW2
added that her daughter was examined by a Doctor and that the child's
statement was recorded by the learned Magistrate. She identified the accused
in the dock. In cross-examination, it was elicited that the shimmy and
undergarments of the child were not handed over to the authorities as they had
been washed. It was also brought out that in her earlier statement PW2 had not
mentioned contacting the schoolteacher. She firmly denied the defence
suggestion that no such incident had occurred or that the injuries were
sustained during the parade.
15. PW3, V.M. Joy, stated that Justin is his brother's son. At about
4:00 p.m. on 03.02.2018, PW1 came running to his house, crying and bearing
visible injuries on her face and body. PW1 informed him that the appellant
Crl.A.No. 324 of 2024 :12 : 2025:KER:71170
had attempted to harm her. He observed scratch marks on her face and neck
and injuries on her nose and lips. Dry leaves were entangled in her hair. They
gave her a glass of water and escorted her to her home, where she was handed
over to her mother. PW3 noted that PW1 was wearing the uniform of a
Student Police Cadet and was carrying a shawl; she also reported losing her
earrings. During cross-examination, PW3 admitted that he was previously
acquainted with PW1 but had not stated this to the police. He also had not
mentioned in his prior statement that the child regularly passed by his house
on her way to school. The defence pointed to omissions--such as failing to
state earlier that the child came running or that he noticed injuries--but these
minor discrepancies did not affect the substance of the prosecution's case.
16. PW4 attested to the scene mahazar, and PW5 attested to the
seizure mahazar prepared during the seizure of clothes. PW6, a teacher at the
survivor's school, confirmed that Student Police Cadet training was conducted
on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and stated that on 05.02.2018, PW2
informed her of the abuse. She also confirmed, by reference to the school's
register, that PW1 attended training on 03.02.2018. PW7, the Headmaster,
produced the certified copy of the Attendance Register, marking PW1's
presence as Serial No. 31. PW8, the Casualty Medical Officer at the
Government Taluk Hospital, Payyannur, examined the accused and issued
Ext. P6, which stated that there was nothing to suggest that the accused was
incapable of performing a sexual act.
17. PW9, a Senior Resident in the Department of Obstetrics and
Crl.A.No. 324 of 2024 :13 : 2025:KER:71170
Gynaecology at Pariyaram Medical College, testified that she examined PW1,
aged 13 years, and issued Ext. P7 certificate. The history provided was that
the child had been sexually assaulted on 03.02.2018 at about 2:00 p.m. She
documented a fresh tear of the hymen, bruises and scratch marks on the face,
buttocks, and waist, a bite mark on the lip, and bruises on the nose and neck,
and confirmed that the hymen was ruptured. She collected pubic hair
clippings, vaginal swabs, and smears for forensic analysis, noting that PW1's
last menstruation occurred on 02.02.2018. PW9 stated that PW1 identified the
appellant as the assailant. In cross-examination, she clarified that while there
were numerous marks on the child's body, not all were individually noted. She
rejected the defence suggestion that hymenal rupture could result from
vigorous exercise or participation in a march-past.
18. PW10, a Civil Police Officer, testified to seizing the child's
clothes. PW11, the Village Officer of Peringoor, issued the possession
certificate for property owned by Abdulla Haji. PW13, proprietor of Athulya
Jewellery Works, stated that the accused visited his shop at 5:00 p.m. on
03.02.2018, sold earrings weighing about 3 grams, and received Rs. 4,000/-.
On 16.02.2018, police accompanied the accused to the shop and seized the
gold ingots produced by melting the earrings, documented in Ext. P12 seizure
mahazar. PW14 attested to this seizure. PW15, Registrar of Births and Deaths,
Payyannur Municipality, produced Ext. P13 birth certificate establishing
PW1's date of birth as 16.05.2004. PW16 is the officer who recorded the First
Information Statement, and omissions in the child's statement were put to this
Crl.A.No. 324 of 2024 :14 : 2025:KER:71170
witness. PW17 is the officer who conducted the investigation.
19. Upon a careful evaluation of the evidence, it is clear from
Ext.P13 that PW1 was born on 16.05.2004. The fact that she was studying in
the IX Standard and had left home at 8:00 a.m. on 03.02.2018 to attend the
Student Cadet Training conducted at her school and returned at around 4:00
p.m is established through the depositions of PW1, PW2, and PW7, as well as
from Ext. P5 and Ext. P1. The evidence further reveals that, while returning
from the training, she boarded a KSRTC bus where she encountered the
appellant. Acting on his pretence, she alighted at Madakkamparabil to take
what he represented as a shortcut to her home. The accused then misled the
child to a secluded location under the guise of guiding her and there
committed the alleged offence. The circumstances of the crime are brought
out through the testimonies of PW1 and PW9 and corroborated by Ext. P7.
The record also shows that the child fled for her life and reached the house of
PW3, who helped her return home safely. PW1 disclosed the incident to her
mother, PW2, only on the afternoon of 05.02.2018, following which Ext. P1
first information statement (FIS) was recorded.
20. The first and foremost contention raised by the learned counsel
concerns the alleged delay in lodging the FIR. The incident occurred on
03.02.2018, yet the matter was disclosed to PW2 only on the afternoon of
05.02.2018. However, Ext. P1 establishes that the first information was given
on the very same day the disclosure was made, at 4:30 p.m. In these facts and
circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any undue delay in informing
Crl.A.No. 324 of 2024 :15 : 2025:KER:71170
the police once the child confided in her mother. Victims of sexual assault,
particularly minors, are often hesitant or unable to recount such incidents
promptly because of deep psychological, emotional, and social factors. The
parent-child relationship itself can complicate disclosure; a child may
reasonably fear how parents will react, leading to further delay. The terror and
trauma that engulf the mind of a child after such an occurrence are
immeasurable and defy ordinary expectations of immediate reporting. In that
view of the matter, any delay in disclosure must be viewed with compassion
and in the context of the overall circumstances, and cannot be used to
discredit the survivor. When the accused has failed to demonstrate any ulterior
motive for false implication, a slight delay in lodging the FIR cannot, by any
measure, be treated as a ground to brand the entire prosecution case as
frivolous.
21. The learned counsel next contended that PW1 is not a reliable
witness, pointing to variations between her statements in Ext. P1 and Ext. P2.
It is highlighted that the child did not disclose certain aspects to the police and
that they were later included in the more detailed account given to the Doctor
who examined her. It must be borne in mind that the statement to the police
was made first in point of time, when the child was likely still overwhelmed
by fear and shock. Only thereafter was she examined by a lady Doctor who
carefully recorded the injuries and elicited further particulars. The child might
have felt more at ease with the doctor, or the doctor may simply have been
able to draw out additional details through sensitive questioning. The core of
Crl.A.No. 324 of 2024 :16 : 2025:KER:71170
the child's version, however, remains consistent. The subsequent statement to
the Doctor reflects a more confident and composed disclosure, not a
contradictory one. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the account
given to the doctor is at variance with the statement made to the police.
22. It was further argued that PW1 described the place of
occurrence as a rubber plantation, whereas Ext. P3 scene mahazar records it as
a secluded location with no houses nearby. This contention is equally without
merit. PW11, who prepared the Ext. P10 site plan, clarified that although no
rubber trees stood at the precise spot of the assault, the area was surrounded
by rubber trees. It is unreasonable to expect a child, still grappling with the
trauma of the incident, to distinguish between an actual rubber plantation and
a location merely encircled by rubber trees. When Exts. P3, P10, and the
depositions of PW1 and PW11 are read together, the place of occurrence
stands clearly and convincingly established, thereby lending further credibility
to PW1's testimony.
23. The defence also highlighted discrepancies regarding PW1's
arrival at PW3's house, the absence of an explanation for how she carried the
shawl she was wearing, and the investigating officer's omission to seize the
shimmy worn by PW1. None of these points are sufficient to erode the
prosecution's case.
24. The learned counsel further pointed to inconsistencies between
Ext.P7(a), Ext.P1, and PW1's testimony regarding the narrative of the
Crl.A.No. 324 of 2024 :17 : 2025:KER:71170
incident. However, a close reading of these records reveals a consistent and
unwavering assertion by the survivor that the appellant committed the offence.
Ext. P7 details injuries, including scratch marks, bruises, and a ruptured
hymen identified as a fresh wound. PW9, who prepared Ext. P7, testified
unequivocally to evidence of a recent sexual act and signs of resistance. No
evidence was presented to suggest any motive for false implication of the
appellant.
25. PW1 has unequivocally narrated the incident, and her testimony
is corroborated by medical evidence. The appellant has produced no evidence
of false implication or of the presence of any other perpetrator. The medical
findings, supported by the testimony of PW2, lend strong credibility to PW1's
account. Her identification of the accused in open court further strengthens the
prosecution's case and firmly establishes the appellant's culpability.
26. There is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to
corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of
conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be
recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if her evidence inspires
confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her
veracity. (See State of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh2)
27. In the State of H.P. v. Manga Singh3, it was held that
conviction can be based solely on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and
[(1993) 2 SCC 622]
[(2019) 16 SCC 759]
Crl.A.No. 324 of 2024 :18 : 2025:KER:71170
no corroboration is required unless there are compelling reasons which
necessitate the courts to insist for corroboration of her statement.
Corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law,
but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor
contractions or small discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing the
evidence of the prosecutrix.
28. In Sham Singh v. State of Haryana4, it was observed that
testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which
necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find
no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to
convict an accused. It was further observed that seeking corroboration of her
statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to
adding insult to injury.
29. In State Of U.P v. Pappu Alias and Ors.5, it was observed that
a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not
an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony
cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands
at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury
on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as
psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to
accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for
[(2018) 18 SCC 34]
[2005 AIR SC 1248]
Crl.A.No. 324 of 2024 :19 : 2025:KER:71170
evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her
testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of
an accomplice, would do.
30. The learned counsel also advanced arguments to assail the
recovery of the gold ingots based on the confessional statement given by the
appellant. According to the prosecution, the gold earrings worn by PW1 was
robbed by him by threatening her after subjecting her to rape. After the
appellant was arrested and based on the disclosure statement given by him and
being led by him, the investigating officer reached the shop by name "Athulya
Jewelry Works" run by PW13, the jewellery shop owner, identified the
appellant as the person who had sold the gold ornaments. PW13 stated that on
03.02.2018 at around 5 p.m., a gold earring weighing 3 grams was sold to him
by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has evaluated the evidence in its
proper perspective and has relied on the same.
31. Having appreciated the entire evidence, we are of the view that
the trial court has not committed any error in convicting the accused, relying
upon the deposition of the victim and the medical evidence as corroborated by
the other evidence adduced in the case. We find no reason to interfere with the
finding of guilt, conviction and sentence arrived at by the learned Sessions
Judge.
32. We find that the prosecution has been able to establish that the
appellant trafficked a minor fraudulently to a secluded place to commit
Crl.A.No. 324 of 2024 :20 : 2025:KER:71170
penetrative sexual assault and has further intimidated her and robbed her
earrings after threatening her. In that view of the matter, the judgment passed
by the learned Sessions Judge finding the appellant guilty for the offences
under Section 376(2)(i), Sections 370(4), 370A(1), 392 and 506(i) of the IPC
and under Section 5(i) r/w. Section 6 of the POCSO Act does not warrant any
interference.
33. We find that the learned Sessions Judge has ordered the DLSA,
Kannur for grant of adequate compensation in accordance with the National
Legal Services Authority Victim Compensation Scheme. If the compensation
has not been determined and paid, the same shall be expedited.
This appeal will stand dismissed, confirming the finding of guilt,
conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge for the Trial of Offences
under the POCSO Act, Thalassery, in S.C. No.452 of 2018.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
Sd/-
K.V. JAYAKUMAR,
JUDGE
PS/23/09/2025
